Mrs.  Rober 

PRINCETON,  N.  J.                 ^cj^. 

Purchased  by  the 
t  Lenox  Kennedy  Church  History  Fund 

Dmsion."P)X_5..8.D  1 
Section  .  .  •  .Sn  .  _-!  _rl 

HARVARD 
HISTORICAL  STUDIES 


PUBLISHED    UNDER    THE    DIRECTION    OF    THE    DEPARTMENT    OF 
HISTORY    AND    GOVERNMENT    FROM    THE    INCOME    OF 


Zhc  Ibenri?  Marten  ^orre^  jfunb 


Volume    IX 


The  Anglican  Episcopate 


AND 


THE   AMERICAN    COLONIES 


ARTHUR   LYON   CROSS,   Ph.D. 

INSTRUCTOR   IN   HISTORY   IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF   MICHIGAN 

SOMETIME  ASSISTANT    IN    AMERICAN    HISTORY   IN 

HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 
LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 

LONDON  AND   BOMBAY 
1902 


Copyright,  iqo2. 
By  the  President  and  Fellows  of  Harvard  College 


Nortoaal]  ^regs 

J.  S.  Gushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Masa.  U.S.A. 


PREFACE. 


This  monograph,  in  its  original  form,  was  accepted 
as  a  dissertation  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 
at  Harvard  University;  it  also  was  awarded  the  Toppan 
Prize  in  1899.  Since  that  time  the  work  has  been,  to 
a  considerable  extent,  recast,  revised,  and  enlarged. 

The  author  feels  greatly  indebted  to  the  help  of 
many  friends  for  whatever  merit  his  book  may  possess. 
Among  his  former  teachers  at  Harvard  his  chief  ac- 
knowledgments are  due  to  Professor  Edward  Channing, 
under  whose  guidance  the  work  was  prepared,  and  who 
has  liberally  contributed  advice  and  assistance  at  every 
stage  of  its  progress ;  to  Professor  Albert  Bushnell  Hart 
for  many  valuable  suggestions ;  and  to  Professor  Charles 
Gross,  who  kindly  consented  to  read  the  proof.  Miss 
Addie  F.  Rowe,  of  Cambridge,  rendered  efficient  service 
in  getting  the  manuscript  ready  for  the  press.  The 
extensive  privileges  and  courteous  assistance  received 
from  authorities  and  officials  at  the  Harvard  Univer- 
sity Library,  the  Library  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  and  John  Carter  Brown  Library,  in  this  coun- 
try,   and    at   the    British    Museum,  the    Public   Record 


Vi  PREFACE. 

Office,  and  Lambeth  Palace,  in  England,  are  gratefully 
acknowledged.  Especially  the  author  wishes  to  express 
his  deep  obligations  to  Mandell  Creighton,  late  Bishop 
of  London,  for  generously  placing  at  his  disposal  the 
rich  collections  at  Fulham  Palace  relating  to  his  subject. 


ARTHUR  LYON   CROSS. 


University  of  Michigan, 

April,  1902. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Page 
The  BEGI^fNINGS  of  Episcopal  Control  over  the  Colonies   .     .        i 

CHAPTER   II. 
The  Policy  and  Work  of  Bishop  Compton,  1675-1714   ....      25 

CHAPTER   III. 
The  Royal  Commission:  Gibson  to  Sherlock,  i 723-1 748    ...      52 

CHAPTER   IV. 
Attempts  to  Obtain  an  American  Episcopate,  1638-1748  ...      88 

CHAPTER  V. 

Expiration  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  Commission:  Sherlock's 

Policy,  1748-1761 113 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Mayhew  Controversy,  1763- 1765 139 

CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Chandler-Chauncy  Controversy,  1767-1771 161 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Newspaper  Controversy,  i  768-1 769 195 

CHAPTER   IX. 

The  Conventions  and  the  Episcopal  Question,  1766-1775      .     .    215 


viii  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   X. 

Page 
The  Opposition  in  Virginia 226 

CHAPTER   XI. 

From  Sherlock's  Death  to  the  Revolution,  i  761 -1775      .     .     .    241 

CHAPTER   XH. 

After  the  Revolution  :    the  Establishment  of  an  American 

Episcopate 263 


APPENDICES. 


Illustrative  Documents  :  — 

I.     Order  of  the  King  in  Council  vesting  the  Churches  of  Delph 

and  Hamburgh  in  the  Bishop  of  London,  1633     ....     273 
II.     Commission  for  regulating  Plantations,  1634 274 

III.  Observations  of  the  Bishop  of  London  regarding  a  Suffragan 

for  America,  1707 277 

IV.  Correspondence  of  Commissary  Gordon  of  Barbadoes  con- 

cerning the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  the 

Colonies,  1724-1725 279 

V.     Gibson's  Commission  and  Relative  Papers,  1 726-1 730     .     .     283 
VI.     Methodus  Procedendi  Contra  Clericos  Irregulares  in  Planta- 

tionibus  Americanis,  1728 294 

VII.     A  Typical  License  from  the  Bishop  of  London  to  a  Colonial 

Clergyman,  1742 309 

VIII.  Letter  from  A.  Spencer  to  Bishop  Sherlock  stating  the  Re- 
sult of  his  Mission  to  the  American  Colonies  for  the  Purpose 
of  sounding  Public  Opinion  on  the  Question  of  introducing 

Bishops,  1749 310 

IX.     Extracts  from  the  Report  of  a  Committee  for  preventing  the 

Establishment  of  Bishops  in  the  Colonies,  1 749-1750    .     .     311 

X.     Bishop  Sherlock's  Circular  to  the  Commissaries,  of  Septem- 
ber 19,  1750,  with  some  hitherto  Unpublished  Replies  .     .311 
XI.     Correspondence  between  the  Bishop  of  London  and  the 
English  Ministry,  relative  to  the  Introduction  of  Bishops 
into  the  American  Colonies,  1749-1750 320 


CONTENTS.  ix 

Page 
XII.     Bishop  Sherlock's  Report  on  the  State  of  the  Church  of 

England  in  the  Colonies,  1749 332 

XIII.  Rev.  Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler  to  the  Bishop  of  London, 

stating  his  Reasons  for  writing  the  Appeal  to  the  Public, 
1767 345 

XIV.  Legislation  of  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  to  provide 

Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  for  the  Church  of  England 

in  the  United  States  of  America,  1 784- 1 786 346 

B.  List  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  Bishops  of 

London  during  the  Seventeenth  and  Eighteenth 
Centuries 349 

C.  List  of  Special  Works       350 

INDEX 358 


THE   ANGLICAN     EPISCOPATE   AND 
THE   AMERICAN   COLONIES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  BEGINNINGS   OF   EPISCOPAL  CONTROL  OVER  THE 

COLONIES. 

The  history  of  the  relations  between  the  Anglican  episcopate 
and  the  English  plantations  in  North  America  may  be  studied 
under  two  aspects.  One  aspect  has  to  do  with  the  jurisdic- 
tion which  the  Bishop  of  London  exercised  over  the  colonial 
Church  of  England ;  the  other  is  concerned  with  the  attempts 
which  were  made  from  time  to  time  to  introduce  resident 
bishops  into  the  colonies,  and  to  transfer  his  powers  into  their 
hands. 

In  the  study  of  this  subject,  the  origin,  nature,  and  actual 
workings  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  authority  as  colonial  dioce- 
san will  be  considered  first.  After  that,  the  earlier  attempts  to 
establish  bishops  resident  in  the  colonies  will  be  examined,  and 
an  effort  will  be  made  to  explain  the  motives  actuating  the 
authors  of  this  movement.  The  next  step  will  be  to  describe 
the  opposition  which  gradually  manifested  itself  against  the 
project.  This  will  bring  us  to  the  outbreak  of  the  controversies 
between  those  who  sought  to  secure,  and  those  who  strove 
to  prevent,  the  settlement  of  resident  bishops.  After  tracing 
at  some  length  the  details  of  this  struggle,  and  endeavoring 
to  estimate  its  significance,  a  short  account  will  be  given  of 
the  steps  which  finally,  after  the  United  States  became  an 
independent  nation,  led  to  the  establishment  of  a  native  Ameri- 
can episcopate.  The  work  will  close  with  a  general  survey 
and  summing  up  of  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the 
whole  discussion. 


2  THE  BEGINNINGS   OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

The  subject  thus  sketched  in  bare  outline  would  seem  at  first 
glance  to  be  one  of  purely  ecclesiastical  concern ;  but,  while 
this  feature  is  largely  predominant,  there  is  also  a  political 
aspect,  claiming  the  attention  of  any  one  who  aims  at  an  under- 
standing of  our  pre-Revolutionary  history.  At  the  very  outset 
we  find  secular  considerations  playing  an  important  part  in  the 
Laudian  project  to  establish  episcopal  control  over  the  colonies, 
as  a  preliminary  step  toward  the  founding  of  a  state  church. 
After  the  failure  of  this  plan,  religious  and  political  questions 
cease  for  more  than  a  century  to  have  any  perceptible  connec- 
tion. With  the  approach  of  the  War  for  Independence,  however, 
ecclesiastical  issues  become  involved  with  those  of  practical 
politics,  and  exhibit  a  phase,  not  altogether  uninteresting  or 
unimportant,  in  the  final  struggle  leading  up  to  the  separation 
from  Great  Britain.  But,  waiving  for  the  present  any  further 
considerations  on  this  point,  let  us  see  what  kind  of  authority  the 
bishops  of  London  exercised  over  the  colonies,  and  how  they 
came  to  be  vested  with  it. 

Among  the  functions  which,  according  to  English  ecclesias- 
tical law,  appertained  to  a  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England, 
those  which  concern  us  in  this  survey  may  be  grouped  under 
two  heads.i  The  first,  or  more  purely  ecclesiastical,  function 
had  to  do  mainly  with  administering  the  government  and  disci- 
pline of  the  church,  —  with  consecrating  sacred  edifices,  for 
example,  and  with  confirming,  ordaining,  suspending,  and  de- 
grading ministers.  The  second  function,  which  was  rather 
civil,  or  ecclesiastico-civil,  in  its  character,  comprised  a  certain 
jurisdiction  over  the  probate  of  wills,  the  issue  of  marriage 
licenses,  and  the  presentation  to  benefices. 

Although  these  functions,  and  many  others,  were  constantly 
and  successfully  exercised  by  every  bishop  in  the  mother  coun- 
try, it  is  easy  to  see  how  difficult,  nay,  how  impossible,  it  was 
for  a  bishop  resident  in  England  to  perform  them  for  the  dis- 
tant colonies  with  any  satisfaction  to  himself  or  to  those  com- 
mitted to  his  charge.     Hence,  many  devices  were  employed, 

^  Nothing  need  be  said  here  of  the  bishop's  legislative  functions,  or  of  his 
competence  in  causes  not  purely  ecclesiastical,  for  these  were  never  extended 
to  the  colonies. 


COMMISSARIES  IN  THE  COLONIES.  3 

with  more  or  less  success,  to  avoid  the  difficulties  necessarily 
attendant  upon  this  unfortunate  condition  of  things.  Some 
of  the  offices,  such  as  ordination,  required  the  personal  par- 
ticipation of  a  bishop ;  accordingly,  since  the  bishop  could 
not  or  would  not  come  to  America,  candidates  for  orders 
were  obliged  to  go  to  England.  The  hardships  and  expense 
which  these  journeys  involved  were  one  of  the  most  frequent 
complaints  of  those  who  argued  for  the  necessity  of  an  Ameri- 
can episcopate.^ 

Other  episcopal  functions  related  chiefly  to  the  oversight  and 
discipline  of  the  church  and  clergy.  These  duties  were,  by  the 
end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  delegated  to  commissaries,^ 
officers  whom  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  are  accustomed 
to  appoint  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  particular 
parts  of  their  dioceses,  where,  owing  to  distance  or  to  other 
causes,  they  cannot  attend  in  person.  A  commissary  may  be 
empowered  to  hold  visitations,  to  call  conventions,  to  superin- 
tend the  conduct  of  the  clergy,  and,  in  general,  to  exercise  the 
authority  of  officer-principal  or  vicar-general.  Appeals,  how- 
ever, lay  not  to  his  bishop,  but  to  the  archbishop,  or  to  some 
great  officer  of  state.^     The  workings  of  the  commissarial  sys- 

^  See,  for  example,  Abbey,  English  Church  and  Bishops  in  the  Eighteetith 
Century,  i.  362-363.  * 

2  There  is  possibly  a  solitary  earlier  instance.  The  Reverend  William 
Morell,  who  came  to  New  England  in  1623,  is  said  to  have  exercised  some 
sort  of  commissarial  jurisdiction.  He  returned  to  England  in  1624,  and  we 
hear  of  no  other  commissary  in  the  colonies  until  the  appointment  of  the  Rev- 
erend James  Blair  in  1689  (cf.  Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  in  American  Antiquarian 
Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series,  xiii.  192 :  citing  Charles  Francis  Adams, 
Three  Episodes  of  Massachusetts  History,  i.  142,  154-155,  229  ;  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  iii.  154;  V&rry,A}iierican  Episcopal 
Church,  i.  81,  395,  ii.  600).  The  statement  of  the  Reverend  Richard  Peters, 
in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Terrick,  November  6,  1766,  that  there  had  been  commis- 
saries since  1620,  seems  to  be  almost  entirely  without  foundation.  The  letter 
is  printed  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections  relating  to  the  American  Colonial 
Church,  ii.  (Pennsylvania)  409-410. 

^  See  Dalcho,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  South-Carolirta,  78-79,  citing 
Constitutions  and  Canons  Ecclesiastical,  Article  127,  where  the  qualifications 
for  a  commissary  are  enumerated.  Cf.  also  Burn,  Ecclesiastical  Law,  i.  290, 
ii.  8.  The  commission  printed  below  in  Appendix  A,  No.  ii.,  will  serve  to 
show  what  was  expected  from  a  colonial  commissary. 


4  THE  BEGIN-NINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

tern  will  be  examined  when  we  come  to  consider  historically  the 
relations  between  the  Bishop  of  London  and  the  several 
colonies.^ 

The  more  properly  civil  part  of  the  bishop's  jurisdiction  — 
such  as  had  to  do  with  probate  of  wills,  marriage  licenses,  and 
collations  to  benefices  —  was  vested,  not  in  these  episcopal 
representatives,  but  in  the  colonial  governors  as  ordinaries  or 
lay  bishops.  These  powers  were  expressly  excepted  out  of  the 
Bishop  of  London's  commission  (when  he  came  to  have  one)  as 
diocesan  of  the  plantations.^  The  reason  for  this  limitation 
seems  to  have  been  that  in  the  early  days  of  the  colonies,  long 
before  the  bishop's  authority  had  come  to  be  permanently  recog- 
nized, the  governors  had  been  accustomed  to  perform  these 
functions,^  and  that,  by  the  time  a  commission  was  issued  to  the 

^  Much  light  on  this  subject  is  to  be  obtained  from  the  letters  of  the  various 
commissaries  to  the  bishops  of  London  :  e.g.,  James  Blair,  November  i8,  1714, 
and  February  10,  1723-24,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  130- 
131,  250-251;  Alexander  Garden,  February  i,  \']^\,  Ftilham  MSS.\  Roger 
Price,  April  19,  1751,  ibid.',  Robert  Jenny,  May  23,  1751,  ibid.',  William 
Dawson,  July  15,  1751,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  377-379. 
Some  of  the  letters  which  have  not  hitherto  been  printed  may  be  found  below 
in  Appendix  A,  No.  x. 

2  See  the  commissions  and  instructions  to  various  governors  after  1685 ; 
e.g.,  to  Governor  Fletcher  of  New  York,  New  York  Docntnents,  iii.  821. 

3  See,  for  example,  an  act  of  the  Virginia  legislature  of  1662  :  "  That  for  the 
preservation  of  purity  and  unity  of  doctrine  and  discipline  in  the  church,  and 
the  right  administration  of  the  sacraments,  no  minister  shall  be  admitted  to 
officiate  in  this  country,  but  such  as  shall  produce  to  the  governor  a  testimo- 
nial that  he  hath  received  his  ordination  from  some  bishop  in  England,  and 
shall  then  subscribe,  to  be  conformable  to  the  orders  and  constitutions  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  laws  there  established  :  upon  which  the  Governor 
is  hereby  requested  to  induct  the  said  minister  into  any  parish  that  shall  tnake 
presentation  of  him :  and  if  another  person  pretending  himself  a  minister, 
shall,  contrary  to  this  act,  presume  to  teach  or  preach,  publicly  or  privately, 
the  governor  and  council  are  hereby  desired  and  empowered  to  silence  the 
person  so  offending,  and  upon  his  obstinate  persistence  to  compell  him  to 
depart  the  country  with  the  first  convenience."  (Trott,  Laws,  No.  VI.,  p.  116  ; 
Hening,  Statutes,  ii.  46 ;  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Cofitributions,  i.  (Virginia)  53). 
Cf.  also  the  following  statement :  "  The  judicial  office  of  Commissary  had  at 
first  been  vested  in  Governors  of  Colonies;  but,  in  1695,  the  Governor  and 
Assembly  of  Maryland  agreed  in  a  petition  to  William  and  Mary,  to  transfer 
it,  as  a  purely  ecclesiastical  office,  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  wrote  to  the 


CLERICAL  APPOIN'TMEIVTS  IN  THE  COLONIES.  5 

Bishop  of  London  defining  his  jurisdiction,  the  practice  had 
become  so  firmly  fixed  by  custom  and  legal  enactment  that  the 
English  authorities  feared  to  excite  the  jealousy  of  the  various 
colonial  governments  by  removing  from  the  secular  arm  duties 
involving  such  dignity  and  profit.  Or  it  may  have  been  that  the 
government  felt  the  need  of  having  a  stronger  coercive  force 
behind  these  important  functions  than  could  have  been  guaran- 
teed either  by  a  non-resident  bishop  or  by  his  commissarial 
representative.  The  governor's  power  of  ordinary  did  not 
include  that  of  patronage,  or  of  presentation  in  any  way  except 
by  lapse ;  nor  did  it  carry  with  it  the  right  to  prefer  any  minis- 
ter to  an  ecclesiastical  benefice  without  a  certificate  from  the 
Bishop  of  London  vouching  for  the  soundness  of  his  orthodoxy 
and  his  morals.^ 

In  the  royal  colonies,^  the  candidates  for  clerical  appointments 
were  presented  by  the  vestries,  and  were  inducted  into  their 
cures  by  the  governors.  In  case  of  a  vacancy  or  a  lapse,  the 
governor  or  the  commissary  recommended  a  successor,  who, 
after  the  vestry  had  received  him,  officiated  as  rector.  If  he 
happened  to  be  inducted  by  the  governor,  he  enjoyed  full  legal 
possession.  But  commonly  the  vestries,  either  from  arbitrari- 
ness or  from  a  desire  to  guard  themselves  from  unworthy 
pastors,  failed  to  present  their  ministers  for  induction,  and  con- 
sequently could  and  did  remove  them  at  will.     This  power  of 

Bishop,  requesting  him  to  send  over  a  Clergyman  to  discharge  its  duties" 
(Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  ii.  383). 

^  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  relative  powers  of  bishop  and  governor  by  a 
contemporary  authority,  see  Commissary  Blair's  "Remarks"  in  the  Virginia 
convention  of  1719,  in  Perry,  Historical  Colleciio7is,  i.  (Virginia)  218-245, 
from  the  original  manuscripts  of  the  convention. 

-  What  is  here  said  applies  particularly  to  Virginia,  where  the  establishment 
was  more  of  a  reality  than  in  any  of  the  other  colonies.  The  royal  provinces 
were  Virginia,  the  Carolinas,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  New  Hampshire,  and 
Georgia ;  the  proprietary,  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  and  Delaware ;  the  charter, 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut.  The  Carolinas,  New  Jersey, 
and  Georgia,  were,  however,  originally  granted  to  proprietaries.     New  Hamp- 

i  shire  for  a  time  formed  a  part  of  Massachusetts.     The  Church  of  England 
was  established  in  Virginia,  Maryland,  South  Carolina,  and  in  three  counties 

■  of  New  York.     At  a  later  period  a  partial  establishment  existed  in    North 
Carolina  also. 


6  THE  BEGINNINGS   OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

removal  was  their  only  safeguard  ;  for  an  appeal  to  a  non-resi- 
dent diocesan,  possessed  of  inadequate  powers  of  coercion,  was, 
to  say  the  least,  uncertain. ^ 

In  the  proprietary  colony  of  Maryland  the  case  was  somewhat 
unique.  Practically  the  whole  control  over  the  appointment  of 
ministers  was  here  vested  in  the  hands  of  the  proprietary,  by  virtue 
of  the  right  of  presentation  which  he  enjoyed,  and  owing  to  the 
fact  that  the  governor,  in  whom  the  right  of  induction  lay,  was 
subject  to  appointment  and  removal  by  him  alone.  Obviously, 
then,  it  depended  solely  upon  his  personal  will  to  say  what 
powers  the  bishop  or  his  commissary  might  exercise  in  the 
colony.  To  be  sure,  the  bishop  enjoyed  a  certain  negative  con- 
trol, in  that  he  issued  the  license  to  the  clerical  candidate ;  but 
this  done,  his  power  really  ceased,  for,  when  the  minister  was 
once  inducted  into  office,  neither  the  bishop,  his  commissary, 
nor  the  vestry  had  any  authority  to  deprive  him  of  the  tempo- 
ralities of  his  living.2  Accordingly,  whatever  jurisdiction  the 
bishop  or  those  who  represented  him  might  seek  to  exercise, 
although  it  might  have  moral  weight,  could  have  no  legal  or 
coercive  force. 

To  sum  up  :  so  far  as  one  can  safely  generalize,  one  may  say 
that  in  both  royal  and  proprietary  colonies  the  governor  pos- 
sessed the  power  of  induction,  while  the  Bishop  of  London 
issued  the  certificate  empowering  the  candidate  to  perform  the 

^  See,  for  example,  Governor  Culpeper's  "  Report  to  the  Lords  of  Trade 
and  Plantations,  on  the  Present  State  of  Virginia,"  December  12,  1681,  in 
Sainsbury,  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colojiial  Series,  America  and  West 
Indies,  1681-1685,  p.  155.  There  were  innumerable  disputes  over  this  matter 
of  presentations,  particularly  in  Virginia  (cf.  Perry,  Historical  Collectiotis,  i. 
(Virginia),  passim) . 

2  One  writer  has  put  the  case  thus  :  "  Lord  Baltimore  selected  a  clergyman 
in  England,  and  appointed  him  to  a  living ;  the  Bishop  of  London  gave  him  a 
license ;  the  Governor  of  the  province  inducted  him  ;  if  he  did  wrong  the 
commissary  tried  him,  if  there  chanced  to  be  a  commissary ;  and,  when 
convicted,  no  power  pjinished  him ;  for  after  induction,  even  his  lordship  the 
proprietor  could  not  remove  him ;  and  the  Bishop  of  London,  nominally  his 
diocesan,  could  neither  give  nor  take  away  the  meanest  living  in  the  province  " 
(Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contribiitions,  ii.  (Maryland)  190).  Cf.  also  Tiffany, 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  7^-76 ;  McConnell,  American  Episcopal  Church, 
107-108. 


CLERICAL  APPOINTMENTS  IN  THE  COLONIES.  7 

clerical  functions  ;  that  in  the  royal  colonies  the  power  of  the 
diocesan  was  restricted  enough,  in  the  proprietary  it  was  practi- 
cally subject  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  proprietor. 
>  In  the  Northern  and  Middle  colonies,  where,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  three  counties  of  New  York,  the  Church  of  England  had 
no  legal  footing,  the  governors  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with 
clerical  appointments.  In  those  churches  which  were  assisted 
by  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  the  ministers  were 
appointed  by  that  body ;  m  the  other  churches  nominally 
by  the  Bishop  of  London,  but  in  many  cases  —  particularly  in 
the  later  years  —  practically  by  the  congregations  themselves.^ 
•In  all  these  colonies,  commissaries  were  the  exception  rather 
than  the  rule;  ^  but,  as  will  be  seen  later,  where  they  did  exist  — 
in  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  for  example  —  they  exercised  a 
more  or  less  active  supervision. 

This  brief  preliminary  survey  is  intended  to  show  in  outline 
the  nature  of  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  over  his 
charges  beyond  the  seas,  and  of  his  relations  to  the  other 
colonial  officials  in  fields  where  their  jurisdictions  came  in  con- 
tact. It  has  been  made  evident  that  the  exercise  of  such 
authority  as  his  Lordship  legally  possessed  was  hampered  by 
many  adverse  circumstances,  particularly  by  the  confusion  of 

^  Since  there  seems  to  have  been  no  fixed  rule,  it  is  hard  to  generalize 
on  this  matter.  Later  on  in  the  course  of  this  discussion  a  few  particular 
cases  will  be  examined.  This  much  one  may  say :  that  the  larger  churches 
in  the  more  important  towns,  —  for  example,  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  and 
King's  Chapel,  Boston,  —  which  kept  up  an  intimate  and  regular  intercourse 
with  their  diocesan,  allowed  themselves  in  the  main  to  be  ruled  by  his  judg- 
ment (cf.  Baldwin,  in  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series, 
xiii.  197).  After  the  resignation  of  Roger  Price  in  1746,  however,  the  congre- 
gation of  King's  Chapel  began  to  choose  its  rectors  without  reference  to  the 
Bishop  of  London  (cf.  Baldwin,  ibid.,  199-200,  citing  Greenwood,  History  of 
King's  Chapel,  105,  179).  For  fiiller  references,  see  Perry,  Historical  Collec- 
tions, ii.-iii.  (Massachusetts  and  Pennsylvania),  and  Foote,  Annals  of  King's 
Chapel,  passim. 

^  During  the  entire  colonial  period  (leaving  out  of  account  the  brief  term  of 
the  Reverend  William  Morell,  noticed  above,  p.  3.  note  2)  there  was  only  one 
commissary  for  all  New  England,  and  one  for  New  York.  Pennsylvania, 
whose  commissarial  district  included  Delaware,  was  a  little  better  off  in  this 
respect. 


8  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

functions  between  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  secular  powers  in 
the  various  colonies,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  bishop  enjoyed 
so  small  a  share  in  the  appointment  of  the  clergy  committed  to 
his  care.  Furthermore,  since  he  could  only  confirm  and  ordain 
such  candidates  from  across  the  water  as  chose  to  come  to 
him,  thereby  being  deprived  of  all  initiative  in  propagating  his 
faith  through  American  agencies,  his  activity,  not  only  in  gov- 
erning, but  also  in  fostering  and  strengthening  the  growth  of 
the  colonial  branch  of  the  AngHcan  church  was  checked  on 
almost  every  side.  Nevertheless,  by  virtue  of  long-established 
custom,  which  linked  his  name  with  the  control  of  the  colonial 
churches,  his  authority  and  influence  were  exerted  and  felt  in 
many  ways :  through  the  powers  conferred  on  him,  at  one 
period  by  a  clause  inserted  in  the  commissions  of  the  various 
colonial  governors,  at  another  by  a  patent  from  the  crown ; 
through  the  visitations  and  exhortations  of  his  commissaries, 
when  there  happened  to  be  any  commissaries ;  and,  finally, 
through  his  connection,  as  an  officer  of  state,  with  that  part  of 
the  Enghsh  government  which  was  vested  with  the  oversight 
of  the  ecclesiastico-political  affairs  of  the  colonies.  Let  us  now 
pass  on  to  a  brief  consideration  of  the  origin  of  such  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction  as  the  Bishop  of  London,  in  his  capacity  as 
colonial  diocesan,  came  to  possess. 

At  the  time  of  the  Restoration,  a  tradition  prevailed  to  the 
effect  that  the  Bishop  of  London's  colonial  authority  rested  on 
an  order  in  council  issued  in  the  Laudian  period.  When,  how- 
ever, a  careful  search,  made  about  1675,  failed  to  reveal  the 
existence  of  any  such  document,  it  became  necessary  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  the  jurisdiction  in  some  other  way.  The  ex- 
planation which  was  finally  adopted,  and  which  has  since  been 
generally  accepted,  was  as  follows :  As  soon  as  the  territories 
of  the  Virginia  Company  had  come  to  be  reasonably  well 
populated,  a  bishop  was  necessary  to  ordain  ministers  and  to 
exercise  a  general  supervision  over  the  church  and  clergy  in 
those  parts ;  since  the  Bishop  of  London  for  the  time  being 
happened  to  be  a  member  of  the  company,  and  had  mani- 
fested some  interest  in  the  church  beyond  the  seas,  the  charge 
was  intrusted  to  him,  and  from  the  precedent  thus  established 


THE  CHURCH  ESTABLISHED  IN  VIRGINIA.  9 

may  be  traced  the  beginnings  of  the  diocesan  control  of  the 
bishops  of  London  over  the  EngHsh  plantations.^ 

The  facts  on  which  this  view  is  based  were  first  presented 
at  length  by  Bishop  Sherlock,  in  a  "  Report  on  the  State  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  Colonies,"  laid  before  the  king 
in  council  in  1759.  Sherlock  begins  his  narrative  with  the 
issue  of  the  first  Virginia  charter,  April  10,  1606,  by  which 
each  of  the  companies  thereby  created  was  to  have  a  council 
for  governing  "  according  to  such  Laws  Ordinances  and  In- 
structions as  sho^  in  that  behalf  be  given  and  signed  by  His 
Majesty  s  hand  or  sign  manual  &  pass  under  the  Privy  Seal 
of  England.''  "On  the  20th  Nov"^,  1606,"  he  continues,  "the 
King  in  pursuance  of  the  right  reserved  to  himself,  gave  divers 
orders  under  his  Sign  manuall  and  the  Privy  Seal,  one  of  which 


^  A  work  published  in  1706,  entitled  Ait  Account  of  the  Society  for  Propa- 
gating the  Gospel  ijt  Foreign  Parts,  remarks  (p.  11)  with  regard  to  the  early 
tradition :  "  An  Order  of  King  and  Council  is  said  to  have  been  made  to 
commit  unto  the  Bishop  of  London,  for  the  time  being,  the  Care  and  Pastoral 
charge  of  sending  over  Ministers  into  our  Foreign  Plantations,  and  having  the 
Jurisdiction  of  them.  But  when  the  present  Lord  Bishop  of  London  was 
advanced  to  that  See  in  1675,  his  Lordship  found  this  Title  so  defective  that 
little  or  no  Good  had  come  of  it."  For  the  facts  that  apparently  form  the 
basis  of  the  view  which  afterward  came  to  be  held,  see  Bishop  Sherlock''s 
"  Report  on  the  State  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  Colonies,"  New  York 
Documents,  vii.  360-369.  References  in  later  works  are :  Hawks  and  Perry, 
Connecticut  Church  Doctiments,  i.  31-32  ;  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions, 
i.  (Virginia)  36-38;  Evans,  Theophilus  Ainericanus,  310-312;  Anderson, 
Colonial  Church,  i.  261-262 ;  Wilberforce,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  36- 
37 ;  Tiffany,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  23 ;  Brodhead,  New  York,  ii. 
456-457;  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  154-155  ;  Foote,  Annals  of 
King''s  Chapel,  i.  171-172.  Whitney,  in  his  History  of  South  Carolina  (a  doc- 
toral dissertation  in  the  Harvard  College  Library),  ii.  410,  thinks  that  the 
jurisdiction  was  a  usurpation  in  the  first  instance,  and  cites  as  authority  for 
his  opinion  the  following  works :  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  supplementary 
chapter,  87 ;  Dalcho,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  South-Carolina,  100 ; 
South  Carolina  Historical  Society,  Collections,  ii.  178;  Chalmers,  Opinions, 
18-23.  Anderson  (^Colonial  Church,  i.  410-412)  and  Makower  (^Constitutional 
History  and  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  England,  141-142)  have  something 
to  say  on  the  beginnings  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  jurisdiction  abroad,  par- 
ticularly about  an  order  in  council  which  was  actually  issued  in  1633,  ^"^^ 
which  will  be  considered  below. 


lO  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL    CONTROL. 

was  as  follows :  '  That  the  President  Council  and  Ministers 
should  provide  that  the  true  word  and  service  of  God  should 
be  preached  planted  and  used,  according  to  the  Rites  and 
Doctrine  of  the  ChiwcJi  of  Etiglajid.'  "  ^  Sherlock  says 
that  when  the  second  charter  was  issued,  May  23,  1609, 
George  Abbot,  then  Bishop  of  London,  was  made  one  of 
the  grantees.^ 

But  during  the  early  years  there  was  little  need  of  any 
episcopal  supervision ;  for  as  late  as  1620  there  appear  to 
have  been  only  five  clergymen  in  the  colony  of  Virginia. 
As  time  went  on,  however,  and  as  the  colony  began  to 
grow,  the  necessity  for  more  ministers  became  apparent,  and 
the  council  for  Virginia  applied  to  John  King,  at  that  time 
Bishop  of  London  and  a  member  of  its  body,  for  his  aid 
in  furnishing  them  with  "  pious,  learned,  and  painful  minis- 
ters." The  Bishop,  who  had,  as  early  as  1619,  shown  his 
zeal  for  the  welfare  of  the  colonies  by  raising  ^i^iooo  toward 
a  fund  for  educating  the  Indians,  quickly  responded.^  In 
this  way,  according  to  the  authorities  cited  above,  grew  up 
the  Bishop  of  London's  colonial  jurisdiction ;  but  neither 
now  or  later  was  any  attempt  made  by  him  to  incorporate 
Virginia  or  any  other  American  colony  into  the  diocese  of 
London.'* 

1  This  "Report"  is  printed  in  full  in  New  York  Documents,  vii.  360  ff. 
There  is  a  complete  text  of  the  charters  and  of  the  supplementary  royal  ordi- 
nance in  Hening,  Statutes,  i.  57  flf.  The  citations  above  are  in  the  words  of 
Sherlock,  which  differ  in  some  respects  verbally,  though  not  substantially,  from 
Hening's  text. 

2  This  is  evidently  an  error.  Abbot  did  not  join  the  Company  until  after 
the  charter  was  issued,  though  his  name  was  inserted  in  later  copies  intended 
for  American  use.  Cf.  Baldwin,  in  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings, 
New  Series,  xiii.  180,  note  2. 

^  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  i.  (Virginia)  36-38  ;  Abbey,  English 
Chjirck  and  Bishops,  i.  75. 

*  See,  particularly,  Tiffany,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  23.  Baldwin 
(American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series,  xiii.  179-181)  dis- 
cusses the  subject  of  the  early  connection  between  the  bishops  of  London  and 
the  colony  of  Virginia.  He  points  out  that  it  had  begun  before  the  time  of 
King,  with  his  predecessors  Ravis  and  Abbot,  and  that  though  he  "  increased, 
...  he  did  not  originate,  the  supervision  of  the  Bishop  of  London  over  the 


BISHOP  KING  AND   THE   VIRGINIA    CHURCH.  n 

From  several  indications  it  is  evident  that  Bishop  King's 
connection  with  the  colonial  churches  was  only  a  passing  one. 
He  himself  died  in  the  year  following  the  application  just 
alluded  to;  and  his  successor  either  made  no  effort  to  supply 
the  colony  with  ministers,  even  if  he  went  so  far  as  to  make 
the  attempt,  and  secured  no  recognition  of  his  power  over  the 
churches  there.  As  a  proof  of  the  first  assertion,  we  have  a 
statement  in  a  report  of  the  Virginia  assembly  in  1624,  that 
there  were  many  officiating  clergymen  who  had  no  orders.^ 
In  support  of  the  second  assertion,  is  the  fact  that  among  the 
thirty-five  "articles"  passed  by  this  assembly,  the  first  seven 
of  which  concern  the  church  and  the  clergy,  there  is  not  one 
that  intimates  in  the  slightest  degree  that  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don had  any  authority  or  jurisdiction  in  the  province  at  that 
time ;  ^  and  also  the  fact  that,  in  an  enumeration  of  the  appur- 
tenances of  the  diocese  of  London,  made  by  a  contemporary 
biographer  of  Laud  at  the  time  of  his  accession  to  that  see,  in 
July,  1628,  the  colonies  are  not  mentioned.^  In  one  respect, 
however,  the  connection  of  Bishop  King  (and  possibly  that  of 
his  predecessors,  Ravis  and  Abbot)  with  Virginia  may  have 
had  some  significance :  it  may  have  established  a  precedent  in 
favor  of  the  Bishop  of  London  when  the  need  of  a  colonial 

Virginia  settlements,  until  it  gradually  came  to  be  recognized  as  authoritative 
on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic." 

^  Sherlock's  "  Report,"  New  York  Docuviefiis,  vii.  361. 

2  Ibid.  Among  other  things  it  was  enacted  "  that  there  be  an  uniformity  in 
our  Church,  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  Canons  in  England,  both  in  substance 
and  circumstance  ;  and  that  all  persons  yield  obedience  to  them  under  pain  of 
censure"  (Hening,  Statutes,  i.  122-124).  See  also  Cornelison,  T/ie  Relation 
of  Religion  to  Civil  Government  in  the  United  States,  7  ;  Tiffany,  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  11-12,  20-21,  where,  however,  the  acts  of  1623-24  are 
assigned  to  the  year  161 9.  Note  also  that,  neither  in  the  new  constitution 
which  Sir  Francis  Wyatt  brought  over  for  the  colony  in  1621  nor  in  his  com- 
mission and  instructions,  is  there  among  the  provisions  with  regard  to  religion, 
any  mention  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  For  the  texts  of  these  documents,  see 
Hening,  Statutes,  i.  110-118. 

^  •'  As  for  the  Diocess  of  London,  it  contains  in  it  the  whole  counties  of 
Middlesex  and  Essex,  so  much  of  Hertfordshire  as  was  anciently  possessed  by 
the  East  Saxons,  together  with  the  peculiar  Jurisdiction  of  the  Church  of 
St.  Albans"  (Heylyn,  Cyprianus  Anglicns,  175). 


12  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

diocesan  came  to  be  felt.  This  is  all  that  can  reasonably  be 
made  of  the  incident.^ 

In  seeking  for  a  more  satisfactory  answer  to  the  obscure  ques- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  colonial  authority, 
we  are  not  much  helped  by  those  who  have  written  on  this 
point.  Bishop  Wilberforce,  for  example,  says  that  it  is  uncer- 
tain whence  the  jurisdiction  sprang,  if  not  from  John  King's 
exercise  of  episcopal  functions  as  a  representative  of  the  Vir- 
ginia Company.  Indeed,  he  regards  this  precedent  as  the  sole 
basis  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  authority  till  1727,  when  a 
royal  commission  under  the  broad  seal  was  issued  to  Bishop 
Gibson. 2  Many  writers  follow  Wilberforce  in  this  view.  Others, 
without  making  any  positive  assertion,  have  hinted  at  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  existence  of  some  sort  of  royal  grant  originally 
vesting  the  Bishop  of  London  with  the  powers  which  he  came 
to  exercise.^  Only  two  or  three  modern  writers  have  even 
touched  what  appears  to  be  the  clue  to  the  best  solution  of  the 
problem.^ 

The  proper  place  to  look  for  the  origin  of  the  precedent  — 
for  it  had  a  basis  no  more  definite  or  authoritative  —  on  which 
the  Bishop  of  London's  colonial  jurisdiction  rested,  is  in  the 
Stuart  pohcy,  instigated  by  Laud,  of  seeking  to  extend  the 
Church  of  England  establishment  to  every  part  of  the  known 

1  The  continuity  of  this  connection  has  undoubtedly  been  overestimated. 
See,  for  example,  Anderson  {Colonial  Cluo'ch,  i.  261),  who  says :  "  So  far,  one 
channel  of  direct  and  authoritative  communication  was  established  between 
himself  [the  Bishop  of  London]  and  the  Clergymen  whom  he  nominated,  and 
over  whom  he  was  to  exercise,  as  far  as  it  was  practicable.  Episcopal  controul." 

^  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  37. 

^  For  example,  Evans  {Theophilus  Atnericanus,  313)  says:  "The  authority 
of  the  Bishop  of  London  has  been  believed  to  have  rested  on  some  grant  from 
Great  Britain ;  but  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  such  a  document  existed 
although  some  of  the  bishops  of  London  had  something  of  the  sort  which  was 
in  force  for  their  lives."  The  last  clause  is,  of  course,  a  vague  reference  to  the 
royal  commission  issued  to  Bishop  Gibson.  For  other  references,  see  above, 
p.  9,  note  I. 

^  Anderson  and  Makower  (see  above,  note  3),  following  Laud's  contempo- 
rary biographer,  Peter  Heylyn,  who  was  court  chaplain  to  both  Charles  L  and 
Charles  II.,  and  Judge  Baldwin  (American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings y. 
New  Series,  xiii.  1 81-182),  who  cites  Anderson. 


LAUD  AIMS  TO  EXTEND  EPISCOPACY.  1 3 

world  where  the  EngHsh  government  had  a  foothold.^  It  will 
be  necessary  to  consider  somewhat  in  detail  the  steps  taken  to 
carry  this  policy  into  effect. 

.  In  the  month  of  July,  1628,  William  Laud  was  translated  to 
the  see  of  London,^  For  the  three  or  four  years  next  ensuing 
he  devoted  himself  to  the  work  of  reducing  the  people  of 
England  and  Scotland  to  conformity  to  the  established  church. 
When  at  length  he  found  time  to  look  abroad,  he  discovered 
a  state  of  affairs  well  calculated  to  make  him  apprehensive  :  . 
the  infection  of  Calvinism  was  spreading  among  the  English-^ 
trading  stations  and  regiments  in  the  Low  Countries.  Laud 
seems  to  have  cared  nothing  for  what  the  Protestants  of  other 
countries  might  do,  —  they  might  accept  whatever  form  of 
doctrine  and  discipline  they  liked,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned, 
—  but  when  it  came  to  Englishmen  living  abroad  the  case  was 
different.  He  shuddered  to  think  of  members  of  the  AngHcan 
communion  becoming  tainted  with  foreign  heresies,  and,  what 
was  infinitely  worse,  coming  back  and  spreading  the  contagion 
at  home.  Yet  this  was  precisely  what  was  likely  to  happen : 
the  congregations  of  the  commercial  settlements  at  Delft  and 
Hamburg,  for  example,  had  gone  so  far  as  to  reject  the  Church 
of  England  form  of  worship  and  to  seek  the  ministration  of 
Presbyterian  divines.^ 

Having  once  reaHzed  the  danger.  Laud  was  not  slow  to  act. 
Early  in  the  year  1632  he  sent  suggestions  to  the  Privy  Council 
for  the  purpose  of  extending  conformity  to  the  national  church 
to  the  English  subjects  beyond  the  seas.*     The  story  of  this 

1  See  Gardiner,  History  of  England,  vii.  314-316.  The  most  complete 
account  of  the  whole  question  of  Laud's  procedure  is  in  Heylyn,  Cyprianiis 
Anglicus,  218  ff.,  259  ff.  Other  references  are:  Collier,  Ecclesiastical  History 
of  Great  Britain,  ii.  752-753  ;  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  i.  411  ;  Makower, 
Constitidiotial  History  and  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  Etigland,  141. 

2  Heylyn,  Cypriamcs  Anglicus,  175  ;  Le  Neve,  Fasti  Ecclesia  Anglicance, 
ii.  304. 

3  Gardiner,  History  of  England,  vii.  314-316. 

^  "  Our  Bishop,"  says  Heylyn,  "  offereth  some  considerations  to  the  Lords 
of  the  Council,  concerning  the  Dishonour  done  to  the  Church  of  England  by 
the  wilful  negligence  of  some  Chaplains  and  other  Ministers,  both  in  our  Fac- 
tories and  Regiments  beyond  the  Seas;    together  with  the  Inconveniences 


14  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

action  and  of  his  subsequent  procedure  is  quaintly  told  by 
Heylyn:  Laud,  he  says,  "not  thinking  he  had  done  enough 
in  order  to  the  peace  and  uniformity  of  the  Church  of  E7igla?id, 
by  taking  care  for  it  here  at  home,  his  thoughts  transported 
him  with  the  like  affection  to  preserve  it  from  neglect  abroad. 
To  which  end  he  had  offered  some  considerations  to  the  Lords 
of  the  Council,  as  before  was  said,  An?io  1622}  relating  to  the 
regulation  of  Gods  publick  Worship  amongst  the  English  Fac- 
tories, and  Regiments  beyond  the  Seas,  and  the  reducing  of  the 
French  and  Dutch  Churches,  settled  in  divers  parts  of  this  Realm, 
unto  some  conformity.  In  reference  to  the  first  he  had  not  sate 
long  in  the  Chaire  of  Cajiterbujy  when  he  procured  an  Order 
from  the  Lords  of  the  Council,  bearing  date  Octob.  I,  1633.  By 
which  their  English  Churches  and  Regiments  in  Hollmid  (and 
afterwards  by  degrees  in  all  other  Foreign  parts  and  planta- 
tions) were  required  strictly  to  observe  the  Eiiglish  Liturgie 
with  all  the  Rites  and  Ceremonies  prescribed  in  it.  Which 
Order  contained  the  sum  and  substance  of  those  considerations 
which  he  offered  to  the  Board  touching  that  particular."  ^ 

which  redounded  to  it  from  the  French  and  Dutch  Congregations,  settled  in 
many  places  amongst  our  selves.  He  had  long  teeified  with  this  Design,  but 
was  not  willing  to  be  his  own  Midwife  when  it  came  to  Birth  ;  and  therefore 
it  was  so  contrived,  that  Windebank  should  make  the  Proposition  at  the  Coun- 
cil Table,  and  put  the  Business  on  so  far,  that  the  Bishop  might  be  moved  by 
the  whole  Board  to  consider  of  the  Several  Points  in  that  weighty  Business : 
who  being  thus  warranted  to  the  execution  of  his  own  desires,  presented  two 
Memorials  at  the  end  of  the  year,  March  22.  The  one  relating  to  the  Facto- 
ries and  Regiments  beyond  the  Seas  ;  the  other  to  the  French  and  Dutch  Plan- 
tations in  London,  Kent,  Norfolk,  Yorkshire,  Hampshire,  and  the  Isle  of 
Axholme  .  .  .  But  it  will  not  be  long,"  continues  Heylyn,  "  before  we  shall 
behold  him  sitting  in  the  Chair  of  Canterbury  [August  6,  1633],  acting  his 
own  Counsels,  bringing  these  Conceptions  to  the  birt]i,  and  putting  the  design 
into  execution"  {Cyprianus  Anglicus,  218,  222).  Cf.  also  Collier,  Ecclesiasti- 
cal History  of  Great  Britaifi,  ii.  752-753.  Anderson  {Colonial  Church,  i.  410) 
cites  both  these  authorities,  and  Makower  {Constitutional  History  atid  Consti- 
tution of  the  Church  of  Englatid,  141)  cites  Anderson. 

^  This  should  be  1632. 

^  Cyprianus  Anglictis,  259.  Heylyn  puts  a  rather  optimistic  construction  on 
the  motives  that  actuated  Laud.  For  a  less  favorable  view,  compare  the  fol- 
lowing: "  The  length  of  this  great  Prelate's  Arm  would  have  reached  not  only 
to  the  Puritans  in  England,  but  the  Factories  beyond  Sea,  if  it  had  been  in 


THE  ORDER  IN  COUNCIL    OF  1633.  1 5 

This  order  in  council  of  October  i,  1633,  provided,  amono- 
other  things,  "  That  the  Company  of  Merchant  Adventurers 
should  not  hereafter  receive  any  minister  into  their  Churches  in 
foreign  parts  without  his  Majesty's  approbation  of  the  person, 
and  that  ye  Liturgy  and  Discipline  now  used  in  ye  Church  of 
England  should  be  received  and  established  there,  and  that  in 
all  things  concerning  their  Church  Government  they  should  be 
under  ye  Jurisdiction  of  ye  Lord  Bpp.  of  London  as  their  Dioce- 
san." 1  Here  the  Bishop  of  London's  jurisdiction  abroad  began ; 
and  here  it  stopped,  at  least  so  far  as  the  American  colonies 
were  concerned,^  until  after  the  Restoration.  But  a  precedent 
had  been  established,  and,  although  incomplete,  it  was  probably 
the  basis  of  the  tradition  which  came  to  connect  the  name  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  with  the  diocesan  control  of  the  English  col- 
onies in  all  parts  of  the  world,  in  America  as  well  as  elsewhere.^ 

his  Power.  The  English  Church  at  Hamburgh  managed  their  Affairs  ac- 
cording to  the  Geneva  Discipline,  by  Elders  and  Deacons.  In  Holland  they 
conformed  to  the  Discipline  of  the  States,  and  met  them  in  their  Synods  and 
Assemblies,  with  consent  of  King  James  and  of  his  present  Majesty,  till  Sec- 
retary Windebank,  at  the  Instance  of  this  Prelate,  offered  some  Proposals  to 
the  Privy  Council  for  their  better  Regulation"  (see  Neal,  Puritans,  ii.  237- 
238,  based  on  Prynne,  Canterbury's  Doom,  389).  Laud's  plan  of  seeking  to 
enforce  conformity  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  Holland  was  never  carried  out ;  for  the  churches  there  were  supported  by 
the  States,  and,  as  the  EngHsh  ministers  represented  in  a  letter  to  the  king, 
would  be  in  danger  of  losing  their  maintenance  if  they  submitted  to  any 
innovations. 

^  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  Charles  I.,  No.  247,  October  1-15,  1633. 

-  This  remark  does  not,  of  course,  apply  to  his  activity  in  connection  with 
the  churches  at  Delft  and  Hamburg.  A  careful  search  through  the  English 
State  Papers,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Calendars,  has  failed  to  reveal  a 
single  instance  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  diocesan  control  over  the  churches 
in  America  during  the  Laudian  period. 

^  The  persistence  of  this  tradition  is  attested  by  the  following  incident :  In 
1675  Henry  Compton  desired  to  ascertain  the  basis  of  the  colonial  authority 
which  was  usually  regarded  as  belonging  to  his  see.  To  that  end  he  applied 
to  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  Plantations.  At  a  meeting  of  a  committee  of  that 
body  held  January  21,  1675,  this  entry  was  made:  ''Their  Lordships  desire 
that  enquiry  be  made  touching  the  Jurisdiction  which  the  Bps.  of  London 
hath  over  the  Foreign  Plantations  ;  in  order  to  w'^  see  the  Charter  of  Vir- 
ginia and  New  England,  or  by  any  other  order  since,  but  most  probably  about 
the  year  1629,  when  Bp.  Laud  was  in  Chief  Authority.''''     [The  last  italics  are 


1 6  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

To  one  who  reads  the  whole  document,^  it  will  be  at  once 
apparent  that  the  authority  which  it  conferred  upon  the  Bishop 
of  London  did  not  extend  to  the  colonies  in  general,  but  was 
limited  to  the  churches  of  the  Merchant  Adventurers  Company 
at  Delft  and  Hamburg.  Heylyn  seems  to  imply  that  its  provi- 
sions were  afterward  extended  to  all  other  English  plantations 
abroad,  including  those  in  America;  for,  in  concluding  his  account 
of  the  events  just  narrated,  he  says  :  "  And  now  at  last  we  have 
the  face  of  an  English  Church  in  Holland,  responsal  to  the 
Bishops  of  London  for  the  time  being,  as  a  part  of  their  Diocess, 
directly  and  immediately  subject  to  their  Jurisdiction.  The  like 
course  was  also  prescribed  for  our  Factories  in  Hamborough, 
and  those  farther  off,  that  is  to  say,  in  Turkey,  in  the  Moguls 
Dominions,  the  Indian  Islands,  the  Plantations  in  Virginia,  the 
Barbadoes,  and  all  other  places  where  the  English  had  any 
standing  Residence  in  the  way  of  Trade."  ^  In  spite  of  Heylyn's 
statement,  there  are  good  reasons  for  concluding  that,  whatever 
may  have  been  the  original  intention,  no  authoritative  action 
based  on  this  order  was  taken,  in  the  Laudian  period,  to  extend 
the  Bishop  of  London's  jurisdiction  to  the  American  plantations, 
or  to  incorporate  the  churches  there  into  his  diocese.  In  the 
first  place,  there  is  no  record  of  anything  of  the  sort  among  the 
State  Papers,  where  one  would  naturally  expect  to  find  it ;  ^  in 

the  present  author's.]  Sherlock's  '•  Report."  New  York  Documents,  vii.  362  ; 
cf.  also  Sainsbury,  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  America  and 
West  Indies,  1675-1676,  pp.  337-338.  This  is,  of  course,  a  question  of  origins. 
The  Bishop  of  London  received  no  legal  authority  to  act  as  diocesan  of  the 
colonies  until  after  the  Restoration. 

^  Those  parts  of  the  order  in  council  which  relate  to  the  subject  in  hand  are 
printed  below  in  Appendix  A,  No.  i.,  from  the  original  manuscript  in  the 
British  Public  Records  Office. 

2  "  It  was  now  hoped,"  he  adds  fervently, "  that  there  would  be  a  Church  of 
England  in  all  Courts  of  Christendom,  in  the  Chief  Cities  of  the  Turk,  and 
other  great  Mahometan  Princes,  in  all  our  Factories  and  Plantations  in  every 
known  Part  of  the  world,  by  which  it  might  be  rendered  as  diffused  and 
Catholick  as  the  Church  of  Rome''''  {Cyprianus  Anglicus,  260).  Compare  also 
what  he  says  above,  p.  14. 

^  Note  also  that,  although  the  successive  governors  of  Virginia  (the  only 
colony  where  as  yet  the  Church  of  England  had  anything  like  a  legal  status) 
were  encouraged  to  support  and  foster  the  Church  of  England,  they  were  not 


REASOlSr  FOR   CHOOSING   THE  BISHOP  OF  LONDOIV.       17 

the  second  place,  Laud,  as  will  subsequently  be  shown,  employed 
other  methods  for  administering  the  affairs  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  this  country. 

The  question  naturally  arises  why  the  Bishop  of  London,  rather 
than  any  other,  was  chosen  to  act  as  diocesan  of  the  foreign 
churches  which  Laud  was  seeking  to  reduce  to  conformity.  It 
is  hardly  probable  that  the  previous  relations  of  Bishops  Ravis, 
Abbot,  and  King  with  the  colony  of  Virginia  had  any  weight  in 
determining  the  choice :  the  independent  character  of  the  Laudian 
procedure  detracts  from  the  likelihood  of  this  hypothesis.  More- 
over, there  are  other  reasons  to  account  for  the  selection,  if  it  needs 
to  be  accounted  for  at  all.  Laud,  it  should  be  remembered,  held 
the  see  of  London  when  he  began  negotiations  for  the  controlof  the 
churches  abroad,  though  he  was  translated  to  Canterbury  before 
he  completed  them.  As  primate,  he  had  enough  to  do  at  home 
without  undertaking  the  administration  of  church  affairs  abroad  ; 
and  in  selecting  another  to  perform  these  functions  it  was  natural 
for  several  reasons  that  he  should  choose  the  Bishop  of  London. 
In  the  first  place,  London  was  the  see  which  he  himself  had 
occupied  during  the  transactions  leading  up  to  the  issue  of  the 
order.^  In  the  second  place,  William  Juxon,  his  successor,  was 
a  man  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  his  policy,  he  was,  in  fact, 
the  primate's  own  nominee.  Finally,  London,  as  the  great 
centre  of  trade  with  the  continent,  was  more  closely  associated 
than  any  other  city  of  the  kingdom  with  foreign  trading  settle- 
ments ;  indeed,  evidence  is  not  lacking  to  indicate  that  since  the 

instructed,  as  they  came  to  be  after  1685,  to  sustain  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  London.  In  one  case,  at  least,  the  encouragement  to  support  the 
established  church  was  couched  in  very  specific  terms.  For  example,  Article  i 
of  the  instructions  issued  to  Sir  William  Berkeley  in  1650,  provided  "that  in 
the  first  place  you  be  careful.  Almighty  God  may  be  duly  and  daily  served, 
according  to  the  form  of  Religion  established  in  the  Church  of  England, 
both  by  yourself  and  all  the  people  under  your  charge,  which  may  draw  down 
a  Blessing  upon  all  your  Endeavors.  .  .  .  Suffer  no  Innovation  in  matters 
of  Religion,  and  be  careful  to  appoint  sufficient  and  conformable  ministers  to 
each  Congregation,  that  they  may  Catechise  and  Instruct  them  in  the  Ground 
and  Principle  of  Religion"  (Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  1-2). 

1  Laud  became  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  August ;  but  since  William 
Juxon  was  not  consecrated  till  October  3,  1633,  the  see  was  probably  not  alto- 
gether out  of  Laud's  hands  at  the  time  of  the  issue  of  the  order  in  council. 


1 8  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

previous  century  its  bishops  had  had  more  or  less  connection 
with  foreign  affairs  and  foreign  churches.-^ 

Having  considered  the  attempts  to  work  out  the  Laudian 
policy  in  the  Low  Countries,  so  far  as  they  affected  the  origin 
of  the  American  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  it  should 
be  beyond  our  province  to  follow  the  subject  farther.  It  may  be 
well  to  note,  however,  that  the  order  in  council  was  at  once  put 
into  practical  operation,  as  is  shown  by  a  letter  of  July  17, 
1634,  from  Archbishop  Laud  to  the  merchants  at  Delft,  com- 
mending to  them  Mr.  Beaumont,  who  had  been  chosen  preacher 
by  the  consent  of  their  Company.^  Beaumont's  commission, 
issued  July  17,  1634,  instructed  him  "That  he  should  punctu- 
ally keep  and  observe  all  the  Orders  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  they  are  prescribed  in  the  Canons  and  Kubricks  of  the 
Liturgy ;  and  that  if  any  person  shall  shew  himself  refractory 
to  that  Ordinance  of  his  majesty,  he  shall  certifie  the  name  of 
any  such  offender,  and  his  offense  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don for  the  time  being,  who  was  to  take  order  and  give  remedy 
accordingly."  ^ 

Leaving  at  this  point  the  history  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  in  the  Netherlands,  let  us  turn  our  attention 
to  the  English  colonies  in  America.  Although  there  is  no  evi- 
dence, before  the  Restoration,  of  any  act  performed  by  the 
Bishop  of  London  which  would  lead  one  to  suspect  that  he 
had  any  diocesan  authority  in  the  colonies,  and  not  the  faintest 

'  trace  of  any  theoretical  recognition  of  his  title  there,  there  are, 
on  the  other  hand,  several  instances  of  attempts  by  Laud  to 
control  the  American  branch  of  the  Church  of  England  in  other 
ways. 

,  His  first  step  in  this  direction  was  to  secure  the  issue,  by  writ 
of  privy  seal,  of  a  commission  "  erecting  and  establishing  a  board 

^  For  example,  Vaughan,  who  succeeded  Bancroft  as  Bishop  of  London  in 
1604,  received  from  the  French  and  Dutch  ministers  in  his  diocese  a  petition 
for  protection  and  favor.  In  his  reply  he  speaks  of  Edmund  Grindal,  Bishop 
of  London  from  1559  to  1570,  as  one  of  the  "superintendents  of  your  Churches" 
(Neal,  Puritans,  ii.  40,  from  Strype's  Annals,  iv.  390). 

2  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  i.  411. 

^  Heylyn,  Cyprianus  Anglicus,  260.  Anderson,  Makower,  and  Collier  also 
quote  something  of  the  correspondence  relating  to  this  subject. 


THE  COMMISSION  OF  1634.  1 9 

for  the  purpose  of  governing  the  colonies."  ^  This  board  was 
to  consist  of  Wilham  Laud,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  lord 
keeper  of  the  great  seal,  the  Archbishop  of  York,  the  high 
treasurer,  the  lord  keeper  of  the  privy  seal,  and  seven  other 

*^members  of  the  privy  council.  These,  or  any  five  of  them,  were 
given  "power  for  the  rule  and  protection  of  the  colonies" 
in  both  political  and  civil  affairs  and  (in  consultation  with  two 
or  three  suffragan  bishops,  who  were  to  be  called  in  for  the 
purpose)  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  also.  To  insure  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  laws  and  ordinances  made  in  pursuance  of  their 
authority,  the  commissioners  might  inflict  fitting  punishments. 

'They  might  also  require  from  every  colonial  governor,  and 
magistrate,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  an  account  of  his  office,  and 
might,  with  the  royal  assent,  remove  or  otherwise  punish  him 
for  causes   which   should  seem  to  them  just  and  reasonable. 

'Furthermore,  they  were  authorized,  in  consultation  with  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  some  of  his  suffragans,  to 
estabUsh  courts  and  tribunals  as  well  ecclesiastical  as  civil, 
forms  of  judicature,  and  modes  of  proceeding,  and  to  decide  what 
offences  should  appertain  to  the  ecclesiastical  and  what  to  the 
civil  administrations,  and  to  act  as  a  court  of  appeal  for  settling 

■"'any  disputes  which  might  arise  in  the  colonies.  They  had  also 
the  right  to  provide  for  the  endowment  of  churches  by  means 
of  tithes   and  other  sources   of   revenue,   and  to  revoke  such 

1  For  the  complete  text  of  this  commission  in  Latin,  and  for  a  draft  in 
English,  see  Baldwin  (American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series, 
xiii.  213  ff.).  In  the  body  of  his  article  (pp.  182-187)  Judge  Baldwin  dis- 
cusses this  and  the  second  commission,  of  April  10,  1636.  A  rather  curious 
English  translation  of  the  Latin  original  may  be  found  in  an  appendix  to 
Bradford's  Plymouth  Plantation  (Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collec- 
tions, 4th  Series,  iii.  456).  For  references  to  other  translations,  see  Baldwin 
as  above,  182,  note  2,  and  an  editorial  note  in  Bradford,  Appendix,  456. 
The  Latin  edition  of  the  second  commission  is  in  Pownall,  Administration  of 
the  British  Colonies,  ii.  155  fF.,  from  whom  it  is  copied  by  Hazard,  State 
Papers,  344  fF.,  with  the  date  erroneously  given  as  1634.  The  supposition  of 
the  editor  of  Bradford  that  the  Latin  version  in  Pownall  is  the  original,  from 
which  Bradford's  is  a  translation,  is  incorrect.  Pownall's  version  is  dated 
April  ID,  and  names  Juxon  as  high  treasurer,  an  office  which  he  did  not  begin 
to  hold  till  1635.  In  the  Bradford  edition  the  Earl  of  Portland,  who  died  in 
1635,  is  mentioned  as  high  treasurer. 


20  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

charters  as  seemed  to  infringe  upon  the  royal  prerogative. 
In  short,  they  had  supreme  control  over  every  branch  of  colonial 
affairs,  ecclesiastical  and  civil. 

Two  years  later,  April  lo,  1636,  a  second  commission  was 
issued  to  Archbishop  Laud  and  others  for  the  government  of 
all  persons  within  the  colonies  and  plantations  beyond  the  seas, 
according  to  the  constitutions  there,  with  power  to  constitute 
courts  as  well  ecclesiastical  as  civil,  for  determining  causes.^ 

During  these  years  the  strenuous  attempts  of  the  English 
government  to  execute  the  new  Stuart-Laudian  policy  of  en- 
forcing unity  and  conformity  caused  an  access  of  emigration, 
particularly  to  New  England.  Notwithstanding  the  measures 
which  Laud  had  undertaken  for  the  supervision  and  regulation 
of  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  the  new  world,  he  thought  that 
he  could  maintain  a  firmer  check  on  the  spread  of  dangerous 
opinions  by  keeping  their  suspected  adherents  at  home.  Pro- 
ceeding on  this  assumption,  he  induced  Charles  L  to  issue, 
April  30,  1637,  the  following  proclamation:  "The  King,  being 
informed  that  great  numbers  of  his  subjects  are  yearly  trans- 
ported into  New  England,  with  their  families  and  whole  estates, 
that  they  might  be  out  of  reach  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  his 
Majesty,  therefore,  commands  that  his  officers  of  the  several 
ports  should  suffer  none  to  pass  without  license  from  the  com- 
missioners of  the  several  ports,  and  a  testimonial  from  their 
ministers,  of  their  conformity  to  the  order  and  discipline  of 
their  church."  ^ 

On  the  first  of  May  the  king  issued  a  second  proclamation, 
extending  the  restriction  to  the  clergy  and  vesting  the  right  to 
issue  testimonials  in  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the 
Bishop  of  London.  "Whereas  it  is  observed,"  reads  this 
proclamation,  "that   such  as  are  not  conformable   to    the  dis- 

^  The  Latin  form  of  this  commission  may  be  found  in  Pownall,  from  whom 
it  was  copied  by  Hazard  (see  above,  p.  19,  note  i).  The  first  and  second 
commissions  seem  to  be  substantially  the  same,  except  that  in  the  second  the 
name  of  Juxon,  the  new  high  treasurer,  is  substituted  for  that  of  the  Earl  of 
Portland,  deceased.  Cf.  Sainsbury,  Calendar  of  State  Papers^  Colottial  Series, 
1 5 74- 1 660,  p.  232. 

2  Rushworth,  Historical  Collectio7ts,  ii.  409-410,  quoted  by  Vaughan,  Stuart 
Memorials,  i.  487-488. 


A   BISHOP  DESIGN-ED   FOR  NEW  ENGLAND.  21 

cipline  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  do  frequently  transport 
themselves  to  the  plantations,  where  they  take  liberty  to  nour- 
ish their  factions  and  schismatical  humours,  to  the  hindrance 
of  the  good  conformity  and  unity  of  the  Church,  we,  therefore, 
do  expressly  command  you,  in  his  Majesty's  name,  to  suffer  no 
clergyman  to  transport  himself  without  a  testimonial  from  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  Bishop  of  London."  ^ 

Trusting  to  this  means  to  stop  the  growth  of  the  dissenting 
element  from  without.  Laud's  next  step  was  to  devise  a  way 
to  gain  a  hold  on  those  who  had  already  got  beyond  his  reach. 
To  this  end  he  made  arrangements,  in  1638,  to  send  a  bishop 
to  New  England ;  but,  owing  to  the  sudden  outbreak  of  troubles 
in  Scotland,  he  was  forced  to  abandon  the  design.^ 

^  Rushworth,  Historical  Collediotis,  as  above.  The  appearance  of  the  Bishop 
of  London's  name  in  this  connection  is  interesting,  but  it  furnishes  no  proof 
that  he  was  regarded  as  diocesan  of  the  colonies  at  this  time. 

^  Heylyn's  account  of  the  affair  gives  us  a  most  striking  picture  of  the  way 
in  which  the  New  Englanders  were  regarded  by  a  contemporary  royalist  and 
high-churchman  :  "  Not  much  took  notice  of  at  the  first,"  he  says,  "  when  they 
were  few  in  Numbers,  and  inconsiderable  for  their  Power :  but  growing  up  so 
fest  both  in  Strength  and  multitude,  they  began  to  carry  a  face  of  danger. 
For  how  unsafe  must  it  be  thought  both  to  Church  and  State,  to  suffer  such  a 
Constant  Recepticle  of  discontented,  dangerous,  and  schismatical  Persons,  to 
grow  up  so  fast ;  from  whence,  as  from  the  Bowels  of  the  Trojan  Horse,  so  many 
Incendiaries  might  break  out  to  inflame  the  Nation  ?  New  England,  like  the 
Spleen  in  the  Natural  Body,  by  drawing  to  it  so  many  sullen,  sad,  and  offen- 
sive Humours,  was  not  unuseful  and  unserviceable  to  the  General  Health  :  But 
when  the  Spleen  is  grown  once  too  full,  and  emptieth  itself  into  the  Stomach, 
it  both  corrupts  the  Blood,  and  disturbs  the  Head,  and  leaves  the  whole  man 
wearisome  to  himself  and  others.  And  therefore  to  prevent  such  mischiefs  as 
might  thence  ensue,  it  was  under  the  Consultation  of  the  chief  Physicians,  who 
take  especial  care  of  the  Churches  Health,  to  send  a  Bishop  over  to  them,  for 
their  better  Government,  and  back  him  with  some  Forces  to  compel,  if  he  were 
not  otherwise  able  to  persuade  Obedience.  But  this  Design  was  strangled  in 
the  first  Conception,  by  the  violent  breakings  out  of  the  Troubles  in  Scotland'''' 
{Cypriatms  Angliciis,  347).  Compare  with  this  an  account  from  the  oppo- 
site standpoint :  "  In  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  .  .  .  Laud  attempted  to  subjugate 
the  Colonies,  then  in  their  infancy ;  he  was  not  content  with  striving  to  cramp 
their  trade  by  foolish  proclamations  [see  Rushworth,  Historical  Collections,  i. 
718]  :  but  to  complete  their  ruin,  was  upon  the  point  of  sending  them  a  bishop 
[see  Heylyn,  as  quoted  above],  with  a  military  force  to  back  his  authority  .  .  ." 
{Pennsylvania  Chronicle,  7  July,  1768).    This  quotation,  taken  from  a  contro- 


22  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

The  few  instances  given  in  this  chapter  will  suffice,  it  is 
hoped,  to  convey  some  idea  of  the  plan,  pursued  during  the 
decade  1630-1640,  when  Charles  I.  and  Laud  guided  the  policy 
of  the  English  church  and  state,  of  extending  the  Anglican  eccle- 
siastical system  in  the  English  colonies  throughout  the  world, 
as  well  as  some  idea  of  the  methods  employed  for  the  control 
of  the  colonies.  Naturally,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  by 
virtue  of  his  office  as  primate  and  metropolitan,  was  the  nom- 
inal head  of  the  whole  English  ecclesiastical  system  both  at 
home  and  abroad ;  but,  for  purposes  of  more  immediate  super- 
vision, he  made  various  arrangements  for  the  control  of  the 
colonial  churches.  Thus,  he  granted  to  the  Bishop  of  London 
jurisdiction  over  the  churches  of  the  Merchant  Adventurers 
Company  at  Delft  and  Hamburg ;  he  set  up  a  commission  for 
regulating  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  American  colonies ; 
and  he  made  an  attempt  to  establish  a  bishop  in  New  England 
to  take  charge  of  the  churches  there. 

But  a  crisis  in  the  course  of  English  history  brought  the 
work  thus  begun  to  a  standstill.  Following  the  rising  of  the 
Scots,  came  the  meetings  of  the  Short  and  the  Long  Parliament 
in  quick  succession,  and  in  the  rush  of  events  which  ensued 
the  king  and  his  archbishop  were  allowed  no  time  for  the  con- 
sideration of  colonial  church  affairs.  The  execution  of  Laud 
took  place  in  1645,  and  that  of  Charles  followed  in  1649. 
Then  came  the  Commonwealth  and  the  Protectorate,  a  gov- 
ernment hostile,  not  only  to  the  extension,  but  even  to  the 
existence,  of  the  episcopal  establishment.  These  facts  will 
serve  to  explain  why  there  are  no  records  of  any  official  con- 
nection between  the  Anglican  episcopate  and  the  colonies 
during  the  period  1638-1663.  With  Laud's  death  his  vast 
plan  passed  out  of  consideration,  leaving  no  trace  behind  save  a 
shadowy  tradition,  which  came  to  serve  as  a  precedent  to  the 
succeeding  bishops  of  London  for  the  exercise  of  their  colonial 
authority. 

Soon  after  the    Restoration   the   episcopal   hand   begins   to 

versial  article,  written  at  the  time  when  the  agitation  against  the  establishment 
of  American  bishops  was  at  its  height,  will  serve  to  show  that  the  attempts  of 
Laud  were  regarded  with  no  small  anxiety  by  our  colonial  forefathers. 


THE  PROTECTORATE  AND    THE  RESTORATION.  23 

appear  again  in  the  management  of  colonial  concerns,  and  one 
of  the  names  most  frequently  noticed  in  connection  with  the 
movement  is  that  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  For  example, 
when  an  order  was  passed  June  24,  1663,  to  enforce  the  Brit- 
ish Navigation  laws  in  the  plantations,  his  Lordship  was  one  of 
the  privy  counsellors  assembled  at  Whitehall  for  the  considera- 
tion of  colonial  affairs.^  This  is  only  one  of  six  cases  occurring 
at  this  time  in  which  his  name  is  mentioned  in  the  list  of  those 
members  of  the  Privy  Council  who  served  on  committees  on 
colonial  questions.  To  cite  one  more  specific  instance :  the 
first  connection  of  the  Bishop  of  London  with  the  Carolinas  is 
his  presence,  November  25,  1664,  with  that  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  at  a  meeting  of  this  committee,  on  business 
relating  to  the  administration  of  colonial  detail.^ 
i  As  time  went  on,  indications  began  to  appear  that  the  Bishop 
of  London  was  regarded  as  having  the  pecuhar  charge  of  the 
concerns  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  American  colonies. 
Perhaps  the  best  illustration  which  can  be  given  is  an  extract 
from  a  letter,  dated  July  18,  1666,  from  Thomas  Ludwell, 
secretary  of  Virginia,  to  Secretary  Lord  Arlington,  enclosing  a 
description  of  the  province.  In  that  part  of  his  letter  which  is 
devoted  to  ecclesiastical  affairs,  he  says  that  the  clergy  "  are 
subject  to  the  See  of  London  and  have  no  superior  clergyman 
among  them  .  .  ." ;  he  "wishes  my  Lord  of  London  and  other 
great  clergymen  would  take  them  a  little  more  into  their  care 
for  the  better  supply  of  ministers."  ^     Another  example  of  a 

^  New  York  Documents.,  iii.  44. 

2  North  Carolina  Records.,  i.  73-74.  The  following  example,  also,  may  not 
be  without  significance.  In  1661,  an  anonymous  writer,  who  signed  himself 
"  R.  G.,"  sent  to  Gilbert  Sheldon,  Bishop  of  London,  an  account  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  Virginia,  in  which  he  lamented  the  low  state  into  which  it  had 
fallen,  and  suggested  measures  of  reform.  The  full  title  of  the  work  is 
Virginia''s  Cure,  or  an  Advisive  Narrative  concerning  Virginia,  discovering 
the  True  Ground  of  the  Churches  Unhappiness,  and  the  only  True  Rejnedy.  As 
it  was  presented  to  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Guilbert  Lord  Bishop 
of  London,  by  R.  G.  September  2,  1661.  This  pamphlet  will  be  considered 
somewhat  more  in  detail  in  a  following  chapter. 

^  Sainsbury,  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  America  and  West 
Indies,  1661-1668,  p.  400. 


24  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  EPISCOPAL   CONTROL. 

recognition  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  special  interest  in  the 
plantations  occurred  a  few  years  later.  On  August  2,  1676, 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  enclosed  in  a  letter  to  Bishop 
Compton  a  complaint  addressed  to  him  by  one  John  Yeo,  setting 
forth  the  "  Deplorable  Condition  of  Maryland  for  want  of  an 
Established  Ministry."  The  archbishop  makes  the  following 
comment:  "Received  the  enclosed  from  a  person  altogether 
unknown.  The  design  of  the  writer  seems  very  honest  and  so 
laudable  that  I  conceive  it  concerns  us  by  all  means  to  promote 
it.  If  his  Lordship  will  remember  it  when  Lord  Baltimore's 
affair  is  considered  at  the  Council  Table,  [his  grace]  makes  no 
question  but  there  may  be  a  convenient  opportunity  to  obtain 
some  settled  revenue  for  the  ministry  of  that  place  as  well  as 
the  other  plantations.  When  that  is  once  done  it  will  be  no 
difficult  matter  for  us  to  supply  them  with  those  of  competent 
abilities  both  regular  and  conformable."  ^  Whether  his  Lord- 
ship ever  brought  the  matter  before  the  Council  does  not  appear. 

Certainly  at  the  time  of  the  Restoration  the  opinion  was  more 
or  less  prevalent  that  the  charge  of  colonial  ecclesiastical  affairs 
belonged  to  the  Bishop  of  London ;  and,  according  to  the 
scattered  instances  related  above,  he  seems  even  thus  early  to 
have  taken  some  share  in  the  administration  of  such  matters. 
There  was,  however,  apparently  no  effort  to  place  the  jurisdic- 
tion on  a  legal  footing,  or  to  exercise  it  in  anything  like  a 
systematic  and  efficacious  manner,  until  the  accession  of  Bishop 
Compton,  whose  activity  in  this  direction  will  be  considered  in 
the  next  chapter. 

The  only  permanent  results,  then,  of  the  period  to  which  this 
chapter  has  been  mainly  devoted  were  the  establishment  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  Virginia,^  and  the  fixing  of  the  precedent 
that  the  diocesan  control  of  the  English  plantations  in  North 
America  should  be  vested  in  the  Bishop  of  London. 

^  Sainsbury,  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  America  and  West 
Ifidies,  1 675-1 676,  p.  435. 

2  Tliis  was  brought  about  by  royal  ordinance  in  1606,  confirmed  by  enact- 
ment of  the  Virginia  assembly,  and  reaffirmed  —  in  one  case,  at  least,  specifi- 
cally—  in  the  instructions  to  the  early  governors.  See  above,  pp.  9,  11,  16, 
note  3. 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE    POLICY    AND   WORK    OF    BISHOP    COMPTON,    1675-1714. 

No  sooner  was  Henry  Compton  translated  to  the  see  of 
London,  in  December,  1675,^  than  he  interested  himself  in  the 
affairs  of  the  colonies.  In  a  letter  dated  March,  1676,  he  writes  : 
"  As  the  care  of  your  churches,  with  the  rest  of  the  plantations, 
lies  upon  me  as  your  diocesan,  so  to  discharge  that  trust,  I  shall 
omit  no  occasions  of  promoting  their  good  and  interest."  ^  Re- 
ports from  several  quarters  indicate  that  in  some  of  the  colonies 
the  need  of  such  episcopal  guidance  and  assistance  was  felt. 
For  example,  Sir  Thomas  Lynch,  in  his  account  of  the  state  of 
the  church  in  Jamaica,  written  in  May,  1675,  had  suggested  that 
"if  the  king  would  affix  to  that  island  two  considerable  preb- 
endaries as  of  Eton,  Westminster,  Lincoln,  etc.,  such  person, 
by  the  Bishop  of  London's  direction,  might  have  a  superintend- 
ence of  Church  affairs,  keep  people  in  their  duty,  convert 
sectaries,  and  suppress  atheism  and  irreligion,  which  the  people 
there  much  incline  to."  ^  Evidently,  something  would  now  be 
done,  if  the  united  efforts  of  the  new  bishop  and  divers  earnest 
men  abroad  could  bring  it  to  pass. 

Compton's  first  important  step  was  to  find  out  what  legal 
basis  he  possessed  for  the  authority  over  the  colonies  which 
tradition  attributed  to  his  see.  To  that  end,  he  instituted  the 
inquiry  which  has  already  been  noticed  in  another  connection.* 
Finding  nothing  to  warrant  the  exercise  of  any  formal  jurisdic- 

1  Le  Neve,  Fasti  Ecdesice  Anglican^,  ii.  304;  New  York  Dociiinents,  vii. 
373,  editor's  note. 

'  Wilberforce,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  107,  citing  Fjilham  MSS.  The 
name  of  his  correspondent  is  not  given. 

3  Endorsed,  ''  Sir  Thos.  Lynch,  his  acct.  about  the  Church  in  Jamaica, 
May,  1675"  (Colojtial  Papers,  Vol.  34,  No.  83).  See  also  Sainsbury,  Cal- 
endar of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  America  and  West  Indies,  1675- 1676, 
pp.  237-238.     For  an  earlier  instance,  see  above,  p.  22. 

*  See  above,  p.  1 5,  note  3. 


26  THE   WORK  OF  BISHOP  COMPTO^T. 

tion  on  his  part,  and  at  the  same  time  realizing  the  necessity  of 
some  sort  of  episcopal  supervision  over  the  ministers  and  churches 
beyond  the  seas,  he  induced  the  government  to  insert  the  follow- 
ing provisions  in  the  instructions  issued  to  colonial  governors 
after  this  time  :  "  That  God  be  duly  served,  The  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  as  is  now  established,  read  each  Sunday  and  Holy 
Day,  a7id  the  Blessed  Sacrament  administered  according  to  the 
rules  of  tJie  Chnrch  of  England.  .  .  .  And  our  will  and  pleasure 
is  that  no  Minister  be  preferr'd  by  you,  to  any  Ecclesiastical 
Benefice  in  that  Our  Colony  witJioiit  a  Certificate  from  the  Lord 
Bp.  of  Lo7idon,  of  his  being  conformable  to  the  Doctrifie  of  the 
ChitrcJi  of  Engla7idr  ^  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  powers  thus 
conferred  upon  the  Bishop  of  London  were  of  a  purely  minis- 
terial nature. 

The  practical  condition  of  things  was  this :  first,  the  status 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  colonies  was  upon  an  extremely 
insecure  footing ;  and,  secondly,  the  Bishop  of  London  and  a 
few  ardent  churchmen  resident  beyond  the  seas  desired  to 
remedy  the  matter.  The  truth  of  these  statements  is  evident 
both  from  the  complaints  made  by  some  of  the  colonists  to  him 
whom  they  regarded  as  their  diocesan,  and  from  the  latter's 
attempts  to  bring  these  complaints  before  the  council.  The 
following  incident  will  serve  as  an  illustrative  example.  At 
a  meeting  of  a  committee  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  Plantations 
at  Whitehall,  July  17,  1677,  Bishop  Compton  presented  a  memo- 
rial enumerating  nine  abuses  which  had  crept  into  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  in  the  plantations,^  —  including  offences 
against  ecclesiastical  law,  lax  morality,  and  the  like.  Of  these 
nine  enumerated  abuses,  it  will  be  necessary  to  repeat  at  length 
only  the  first  and  the  seventh.  The  former  asserts,  "  That  the 
Kings  Right  of  Patronage  &  presenting  to  all  benefices  and 
Cures  of  Souls  which  happen  to  be  void  in  any  of  the  Plantations 

^  These  clauses  first  appear  in  the  instructions  to  Governor  Culpeper  of 
Virginia,  Articles  15  and  16,  New  York  Documents,  viii.  362. 

2  "  A  Memorial  of  what  abuses  are  crept  into  the  Churches  of  the  Planta- 
tions :  "  New  York  Docionents,  iii.  253  ;  North  Carolina  Records,  i.  233-234; 
Sainsbury,  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  America  and  West 
Indies,  1677-1680,  pp.  117-118. 


COMPTON'S  MEMORIAL   OF  1677.  27 

is  not  duely  asserted  &  practised  by  the  several  Governors  in  so 
much  as  some  parishes  are  kept  vacant  where  a  lawfull  minister 
may  be  had,  and  some  persons  are  commissionated  to  exercise 
the  ministerial  function  without  Orders  both  in  Virginia,  Barba- 
'  dos,  &  other  places."  The  latter  declares  "  That  the  vestries 
there  [in  Virginia]  pretend  an  Authority  to  be  intrusted  with 
the  sole  management  of  Church  Affaires,  &  to  exercise  an  arbi- 
trary power  over  the  Ministers  themselves."  The  other  sub- 
jects of  complaint  were  as  follows  :  the  fact  that  the  people 
converted  the  profits  of  the  vacant  parishes  to  their  own  uses ; 
the  precarious  tenure  and  small  compensation  of  the  ministers ; 
the  want  of  a  settled  maintenance  for  ministers  in  Maryland  ;  the 
fact  that  in  Virginia  no  places  were  allotted  for  the  burial  of  the 
dead  ;  the  power  of  the  vestries  over  their  ministers  ;  the  failure 
to  enforce  the  marriage  laws  in  Virginia ;  the  law  requiring  all 
Church  of  England  ministers  to  have  their  orders  from  some 
bishop  in  England ;  and  the  fact  that  no  care  was  taken  for  the 
passage  and  accommodation  of  such  ministers  as  were  sent 
over,  except  in  the  case  of  those  sent  to  Virginia. 

The  Bishop's  memorial  seems  to  have  had  some  weight  with 
their  lordships  ;  for,  after  considering  the  enumerated  grievances 
in  order,  they  recommended  that  the  governors  be  directed  to 
see  that  each  was  remedied.  Moreover,  it  was  noted  in  the 
Council's  journal  of  November  10,  that,  in  relation  to  the  law 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  ministry,  their  lordships  thought  all 
the  particulars  in  the  memorial  very  necessary  to  be  observed, 
and  were  of  opinion  that  they  ought  to  make  part  of  the  gov- 
ernor's instructions.^  Again,  January  14,  1680,  on  a  motion 
of  Compton  concerning  the  "  state  of  the  Church  in  His  Maj- 
esty's Plantations,"  the  king  issued  an  order  in  council  direct- 
ing "that  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  Plantations  signify  His 
Majesty's  pleasure  unto  His  respective  Governors  in  America, 
that  every  Minister  within  their  government  be  one  of  the 
Vestry  in  his  respective  parish,  and  that  no  vestry  be  held  with- 
out him  except  in  case  of  sickness,  or  that  after  notice  of  a 
vestry  summoned  he  absent  himself."  ^ 

^  Sainsbury,  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  America  and  West 
Indies,  1677-1680,  p.  176.  "^  Ibid.  469. 


28  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTOAT. 

It  must  be  always  kept  in  mind  that  at  this  time  Virginia  was 
the  only  American  colony  where  the  Church  of  England  had 
anything  hke  a  firm  foothold.  From  New  England,  for  example, 
comes  the  following  testimony  in  the  words  of  Governor  Andros : 
"  I  have  not  heard  of  any  Church  or  Assembly  according  to  ye 
Church  of  England  in  any  [of]  the  Collonyes  ;  their  Ecclesiasti- 
call  government  is  as  in  their  law  bookes  and  practice  most  or 
wholly  independant."  ^  This  statement  is  hardly  surprising  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  in  1680  there  was  only  one  Episcopal 
clergyman  in  New  England,  Father  Jordan  of  Portsmouth.^ 
Indeed,  in  1679,  when  several  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  town 
of  Boston  petitioned  Compton  for  a  minister,  there  appear  to 
have  been  only  four  Church  of  England  clergymen  in  North 
America  outside  of  Virginia  and  Maryland.^  In  the  former 
colony  there  were  forty  parishes  and  something  like  twenty 
clergymen,  and  in  the  latter  twenty-six  parishes,  about  one-half 
of  which  were  supplied  with  ministers.* 

This  paucity  of  means  for  supplying  the  spiritual  needs  of 
Episcopalians  dwelling  outside  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  opened 
Compton's  eyes,  and  caused  him  to  set  about  remedying  the 
defect.  To  this  end  he  induced  King  Charles  to  allow  the  New 
England  church  a  building;  whereupon,  in  1689,  the  society 
formed  in  accordance  with  the  royal  sanction  built  King's 
Chapel,  and  King  William  began  the  practice,  which  was  con- 
tinued till  the  Revolution,  of  sending  an  annual  bounty  of  p^  100 
for  the  support  of  assistant  ministers.^ 

The  energetic  Compton  also  obtained  from  Charles  II.  a 
bounty  of  p^20  for  each  minister  and  schoolmaster  taking  pas- 
sage to  the  West  Indies,  and  caused  instructions  to  be  given  to 
the  respective  governors,  to  permit  no  man  to  serve  in  the  cure 
of  souls,  or  to  teach  school,  unless  licensed  by  the   Bishop  of 

^  Report,  dated  April  9,  1678,  in  answer  to  inquiries  of  the  Council  of  Trade 
concerning  the  plantations  of  New  England,  New  York  Documents,  iii.  264. 

-  McConnell,  American  Episcopal  Church,  41. 

3  Account  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  (1706), 
12  ;  David  Humphreys,  Historical  Account  of  the  Society,  etc.,  8. 

*  Humphreys,  Historical  Account,  41-42. 

^  Account  of  the  Society,  etc.,  11  ;  Humphreys,  Historical  Account,  7. 


THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  COLONIES.  29 

London.  This  provision  for  sending  out  regular  clergymen  and 
schoolmasters  under  the  certificate  of  the  Bishop  of  London  did 
much  for  the  Church  of  England  in  America,  both  in  the  West 
Indies  and  in  the  colonies  on  the  mainland  where  it  came  to 
be  applied. 1  Apparently  Sir  Thomas  Lynch  of  Jamaica  was  the 
first  among  the  West  Indian  governors  to  have  a  clause  inserted 
in  his  instructions,  relating  to  the  ministerial  supervision  of  the 
Bishop  of  London.  It  is  worded  precisely  the  same  as  that 
issued  to  Culpeper  two  years  before,^  with  the  following  addi- 
tional direction  :  "  And  you  axe  to  enquire  whether  any  Min- 
ister preaches  or  administers  the  Sacrament  without  being  in 
due  Orders ;  whereof  you  are  to  give  notice  to  the  Bp.  of 
London."  In  regard  to  this  clause,  a  later  bishop,  Thomas 
Sherlock,  who  seemed  always  to  be  on  the  lookout  for  a  chance 
to  find  a  limitation  in  the  scope  of  any  grant  of  power  to  the 
Bishop  of  London,  remarks :  "  What  the  Bp.  of  London  could 
do  upon  such  notice,  does  not  appear.  The  Plantations  being 
no  part  of  his  Diocese,  nor  had  he  any  authority  to  act  there."  ^ 
Compton's  next  step  was  to  obtain  a  more  effective  control 
over  the  clergy  and  the  laity.*  In  view  of  the  extremely  inse- 
cure position  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  colonies,  he  par- 
ticularly needed  more  power  to  secure  himself  against  unworthy 
ministers.  Consequently,  soon  after  the  accession  of  James  II. 
he  sent  a  letter  April  15,  1685,  to  Blathwaite,  secretary  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  embodying  the  following  prop- 
ositions :  "  That  he  [the  Bishop  of  London]  may  have  all 
Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the  West  Indies,  excepting  the 
disposal  of  parishes,  licences  for  Marriage,  &^  Probate  of 
Wills,"    and  "  That  no  Schoolmaster  coming   from    England, 

1  Account  of  the  Society,  etc.,  12  ;  Humphreys,  Historical  Account,  8-9. 

2  See  above,  p.  26.  Lynch's  instructions  are  dated  1681  {New  York  Docu- 
ments, vii.  362). 

3  Sherlock''s  "  Report,"  New  York  Documents,  vii.  362). 

*  Compare  a  contemporary  writer :  "  And  for  the  better  ordering  of  them, 
his  Lordship  prevailed  with  the  King,  to  devolve  all  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 
in  those  Parts  upon  him  and  his  Successors,  except  what  concern'd  Inductions, 
Marriages,  Probate  of  Wills  and  Administrations,  which  was  continued  by  the 
Governors  as  profitable  Branches  of  their  Revenue"  {Account  of  the  Society, 
etc.,  12-13). 


30  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTOIV. 

be  received  without  Licence  from  His  Lordship,  or  from  other 
His  Majesty's  Plantations  without  they  take  the  Governor's 
licence."  ^ 

The  lords,  having  heard  the  letter,  agreed  to  consider  its 
proposals  further  when  the  bishop  should  be  present.  Accord- 
ingly, on  April  27,  when  Compton  happened  to  be  in  attend- 
ance, the  letter  was  again  read,  and  the  lords  agreed  to  move 
the  king  to  insert  the  articles  in  the  governors'  instructions.  As 
a  result  of  this  resolution,  the  following  clauses  were  added  to 
the  instructions  of  Sir  Philip  Howard,  governor  of  Jamaica,  in 
a  commission  of  the  same  year  :  ^ 

"And  to  the  ejid  the  ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  of  the  s'^  Bp. 
of  Londo7i  may  take  place  in  that  our  Island,  as  far  as  conven- 
iently may  be,  we  do  tJiink  it  fit  that  yon  give  all  conntenajice  a^id 
enconragm*  i^i  the  exercise  of  the  same  exceptifig  only  the  Col- 
lating Benefices,  granting  licences  for  marriages,  and  probate  of 
wills,  which  we  have  reserved  to  you  our  Governor,  and  the 
Commander  in  chief  for  the  time  being. 

"  And  we  do  further  direct  that  no  schoolmaster  be  hencefor- 
ward permitted  to  come  from  England  2LVid  to  keep  school  within 
that  our  Island  zuithout  the  licence  of  the  said  Bishop  T"^ 

Like  instructions  were  afterward  given  to  the  governors  of 
nearly  all  the  royal  provinces.  Under  the  authority  thus  con- 
ferred. Bishops  Compton,  Robinson  (and  Gibson  also  for  the 
first  two  or  three  years  following  his  promotion  to  the  see  of 
London),*  exercised  ecclesiastical  supervision  over  the  colonies, 
except  in  matters  relating  to  collations  to  benefices,  licenses  for 
marriages,  and  probate  of  wills,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  were 
reserved  to  the  governors  in  their  respective  provinces.^  An 
assertion  made  by  some  writers,  that  the  authority  granted  to 
Compton  and  his   successors  was   afterward  confirmed  by  an 

^  New  York  Documents,  vii.  362. 

2  The  clause  already  inserted  in  the  instructions  to  Culpeper  and  Lynch 
(see  above,  p.  29,  and  note  2,  ibid.)  was  naturally  incorporated  in  these  and 
subsequent  instructions. 

^  IVew  York  Documenis,  vii.  363. 

^  Perceval,  Apostolical  Succession,  Appendix,  109-121. 

^  For  a  full  account,  see  New  York  Docu»ients,  vii.  363 ;  Perry,  American 
Episcopal  Church,  i.  154-155  ;  Brodhead,  New  York,  ii.  456-457. 


THE  BASIS  OF  COMPTON'S  AUTHORITY.  31 

order  in  council,^  while  not  capable  of  direct  proof,  has  evidence 
to  support  it.  Though  the  original  order  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  council  books,  yet,  at  about  the  time  when  it  is  said  to  have 
been  issued,  there  is  a  blank  left  on  the  books  for  the  insertion 
of  something  which  was  never  inserted.  The  missing  docu- 
ment, whatever  it  may  be,  is  very  likely  among  the  papers  of 
Mr.  Blathwaite,  who  was  then  acting  chief  clerk  of  the  council ; 
but  where  those  papers  are,  or  whether  they  are  still  extant,  the 
present  writer  has  not  as  yet  been  able  to  discover.  In  the 
opinion  of  Commissary  Gordon  of  Barbadoes,  it  is  very  probable 
that  such  an  order  was  issued.  His  reasons  are  as  follows  :  in 
the  first  place,  because  at  about  that  time  an  order  in  council 
was  issued  adding  the  Bishop  of  London  to  the  body  of  Lords 
Commissioners  for  Trade  and  Plantations,  all  of  whom  were  then 
members  of  the  Privy  Council ;  secondly,  because  the  clauses 
quoted  above  were  inserted  in  governors'  commissions  and  in- 
structions;^ in  the  third  place,  because  in  a  copy  of  a  letter,  dated 
September,  1685,  from  Bishop  Compton  to  Lord  Howard,  gov- 
ernor of  Virginia,  the  order  is  expressly  mentioned,  with  the 
reasons  for  vesting  the  power  in  the  bishop  ;  ^  and,  finally, 
because  there  is  the  indirect  evidence  of  two  orders  in  council, 
dated  October,  1686,  one  suspending  the  Bishop  of  London 
from  his  diocese  and  vesting  the  exercise  of   his  authority  in  a 

^  Abbey,  English  Church  and  Bishops,  i.  82  ;  cited  by  McConnell,  Atnerican 
Episcopal  Church,  97. 

-The  commentator  adds  that  the  words  "which  we  have  reserved,"  etc., 
seem  "  to  refer  to  something  done  before ;  for  every  Reservation  necessarily 
implies  some  previous  Grant  out  of  which  the  Reservation  is  made."  It  is 
more  likely,  however,  that  the  reservation  is  from  the  ordinary  jurisdiction 
which  the  bishops  of  London  exercised  in  England. 

3  " .  .  .  I  do  most  humbly  thank  your  Lordship  for  the  great  care  you  have 
taken  in  setting  the  Church  under  your  Government.  There  is  a  constant 
Order  of  Council  remaining  with  Mr.  Blaithwaite  that  no  man  shall  continue 
in  any  Parish  without  Orders  ;  nor  any  to  be  received  without  a  License  under 
the  hand  of  the  Bishop  of  London  for  the  time  being,  and  that  the  Minister 
shall  always  be  one  of  the  vestry.  This  order  was  made  four  or  five  years 
since,  and  I  can  make  no  doubt,  among  others  you  have  it  in  your  instructions. 
This  King  has  likewise  made  one  lately  that  Except  Licenses  for  marriages, 
Probat  of  Wills,  and  disposing  of  the  Parishes,  all  other  Ecclesiastical  Juris- 
diction shall  be  in  the  Bishop  of  London"  {^Fulham  AISS.). 


32  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTON. 

board  of  commissioners,  the  other,^  issued  a  week  later,  suspend- 
ing him,  with  the  same  formality,   from   his  authority  in  the 

•  plantations  and  conferring  it  on  the  same  commission.'^  Though 
these  reasons  do  not  conclusively  prove  that  there  was  a  stand- 
ing order  in  council,  issued  about  1685,  vesting  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal jurisdiction  of  the  colonies  in  the  Bishop  of  London,  they  at 
least  make  it  appear  highly  probable  that  there  was  such  an 
order,  even  though  no  entry  appears  in  the  council  books. 

Of  course  the  temporary  orders  in  council  embodied  in  every 
governor's  instructions  had,  while  they  continued,  the  force  of 
standing  orders ;  but  they  lacked  the  advantage  of  stability. 
For  instance,  take  the  case  just  alluded  to :  Bishop  Compton 
fell  out  with  King  James  because  of  his  opposition  to  the  Test 
Act ;  whereupon,  on  his  refusal  to  suspend  Dr.  Sharpe  for  a 
sermon  against  popery,  he  was  removed  from  the  Privy  Council, 
his  see  was  put  into  commission,  and  his  colonial  authority  was 
delegated  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,^  It  was  not  long, 
however,  before  Archbishop  Sancroft  himself  incurred  the  king's 

•  displeasure  on  account  of  his  ecclesiastical  opinions.  For  this 
reason  the  jurisdiction  over  the  colonies  was  taken  from  his  hands 
and  transferred  to  the  bishops  of  Durham,  Rochester,  and  Peter- 

1  October  27,  1686:  "Whereas  His  Majesty  has  thought  fitt  to  appoint 
Commissioners  for  exercising  the  Episcopal  Jurisdiction  within  the  City  and 
Diocese  of  London,  His  Majesty  in  Council  does  this  Day  Declare  his  pleasure 
that  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the  Plantations  shall  be  exercised  by  the 
said  Commissioners  ;  and  did  order  &  it  is  hereby  ordered  that  the  R*^^  Honble 
the  Lords  of  the  Commn  for  Trade  &  Plantations  do  prepare  instructions 
for  the  several  governors  in  the  Plantations  accordingly"  {Fulham  MSS.). 

2  For  a  discussion  of  the  whole  subject  see  a  letter  of  November  3,  1725, 
from  Commissary  Gordon  of  Barbadoes  to  Bishop  Gibson,  in  regard  to  his 
jurisdiction  {/bid.     The  letter  is  printed  in  Appendix  A,  No.  iv.). 

^  See  instructions  to  Governor  Dongan  of  New  York,  issued  May  29,  1686, 
in  which,  in  the  articles  relating  to  religion  (Articles  31-38),  the  words 
"  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  "  are  substituted  for  "  Bishop  of  London  "  {New 
York  Documents,  iii.  369-375).  For  details,  see  An  Account  of  the  whole 
Proceedings  against  Henry.,  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  before  the  Lord  Chancellor 
and  the  other  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  (pamphlet,  London,  1688) ;  Life 
of  Henry  Compton  (anonymous),  16-42  ;  Foote,  Annals  of  King'' s  Chapel,  i. 
166-167.  See  also  Brodhead,  New  York,  ii.  455-456,  who  cites  various  other 
references. 


COMPTOAT  APPOINTS   COMMISSARIES.  33 

borough,  who  administered  the  see  of  London  in  commission  dur- 
ing the  suspension  of  Compton.  With  the  change  of  dynasty 
which  soon  followed,  Compton  was  restored  to  royal  favor.^ 
He  must  at  once  have  resumed  his  interest  in  colonial  con- 
cerns; for,  in  an  ordinance  of  February  16,  1689,  by  which 
King  William  nominated  twelve  great  officers  of  state,  or  any 
three  of  them,  to  constitute  a  "  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council 
for  Trade  and  Foreign  Plantations,"  the  Bishop  of  London  is 
the  only  ecclesiastic  on  the  list.^  In  the  instructions  to  Henry 
Sloughter,  January  31,  1689,  Compton's  name  again  appears  as 
diocesan.3 

Being  here  concerned  only  with  the  basis  and  scope  of  the 
Bishop  of  London's  jurisdiction  after  the  Restoration,  we  must 
reserve  for  another  place  a  consideration  of  the  relations  be- 
tween Compton  and  the  particular  colonies.  However,  some 
of  the  more  general  evidences  of  his  activity  may  be  noted 
here.  In  1671  there  were  hardly  more  than  thirty  Church 
of  England  clergymen  in  Virginia  and  Maryland,  and  less  than 
forty  in  the  whole  country.  By  the  year  1700  the  number 
had  increased  to  nearly  sixty,  of  whom  twenty  exercised  their 
functions  outside  the  two  great  Episcopal  centres.*  And  this 
was  in  the  days  before  the  foundation  of  the  Society  for  Propa- 
gating the  Gospel,  by  whose  efforts  so  many  clergymen  were 
sent  to  America.^ 

Compton  also  instituted  the  practice  of  appointing  commis- 
saries, who  from  this  time  until  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century  continued  to  exercise  delegated  authority  in  the  colo- 

1  Brodhead,  New  York,  ii.  456  ;  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  154- 

155- 

2  New  York  Documents,  iii.,  Introduction,  xiv. ;   Life  of  Henry  Compton 

(anonymous),  43. 

^  New  York  Documents,  iii.  685-691 . 

*  McConnell,  American  Episcopal  Church,  87.  Tiffany,  however,  says  that 
at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  were  six  outside  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  and  about  fifty  including  the  clergymen  of  these  two  colonies. 

5  In  1725  this  Society  had  thirty-six  missionaries  in  America,  in  1743  sixty- 
seven,  in  1750  seventy,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution  over  one  hun- 
dred. See  Abbey,  English  Church  and  Bishops,  i.  348 ;  Caswall,  Atnerican 
Chitrch,  68. 

3 


34  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTON. 

nies.^  The  first  commissary  to  receive  an  appointment  was  the 
Reverend  James  Blair,  who  was  sent  to  Virginia  in  1689 ;  ^  the 
second  was  the  Reverend  Thomas  Bray,  sent  in  1695  to  inquire 
into  the  state  of  the  colonial  church  as  a  whole.  It  was  due  to 
the  influence  of  Dr.  Bray's  pamphlet,  A  Memorial,  representing 
the  State  of  Religion  in  the  Continent  of  North  America,  that  the 
Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  was  founded.  Since  this 
society  contributed  more  than  any  other  single  organization 
toward  fostering  the  growth  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
America,  perhaps  a  few  words  concerning  its  origin  and  aims 
will  not  be  out  of  place. 

Not  only  did  the  enthusiasm  of  Compton  rouse  the  English 
government  to  the  need  of  doing  something  to  strengthen  the 
Episcopal  church  abroad,  but  various  indications  show  that  his 
efforts  among  private  individuals  were  equally  successful.  For 
example.  Sir  Leoline  Jenkyns,  in  his  will  (proved  November  9, 
1685),  provided  for  the  establishment  of  two  fellowships  at  Jesus 
College,  Oxford,  on  condition  that  the  holders  take  holy  orders 
and  go  to  sea  when  summoned  by  the  Lord  High  Admiral, 
"  and  in  case  there  be  no  Use  of  their  Service  at  Sea,  to  be 
called  by  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  to  go  out  into  any  of  His 
Majesty's  Foreign  Plantations,  there  to  take  upon  them  the  Cure 
of  Souls,  and  exercise  their  Ministerial  Function."^  This  meant 
a  great  deal  at  a  time  when  there  were,  with  one  or  two  excep- 
tions, no  Church  of  England  ministers  in  Pennsylvania,  the 
Jerseys,  New  York,  or  New  England ;  *  for  the  earliest  Episco- 
pal churches  in  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island  had  not  yet 
been  built,  and  seven  years  were  to  elapse  before  the  church 
secured  its  partial  establishment  in  New  York.^ 

1  In  one  colony,  at  least,  there  were  commissaries  up  to  the  Revolution. 
In  the  others,  however,  few  if  any  appointments  were  made  after  the  time  of 
Gibson. 

^  See  above,  p.  3,  note  2. 

^  Account  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  (1706). 

*  There  was  a  Church  of  England  chaplain  in  the  fort  at  New  York,  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  one  clergyman  at  Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire  (above,  p.  28). 

^  In  1693,  owing  to  the  efforts  of  Governor  Fletcher,  clergymen  were  settled 
in  three  or  four  New  York  counties,  each  supported  by  a  grant  of  from  ^40  to 
^60  a  year. 


THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  SOCIETY.  35 

While  isolated  efforts  such  as  this  were  an  encouraging  sign 
of  a  laudable  missionary  zeal,  it  was  evident,  nevertheless,  that, 
if  effective  results  were  to  be  secured,  they  would  have  to  be 
I  supplemented  by  an  organized  movement.  Realizing  this  fact, 
Archbishop  Tennison  and  Bishop  Compton  applied  to  the 
king  to  charter  a  missionary  society;  and  as  a  result  of  their 
efforts  the  "  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
Parts  "  was  incorporated  by  royal  charter  under  the  great  seal 
on  June  16,  1701.^  All  the  bishops  of  the  realm  were  to  can- 
vass for  such  clergymen  as  were  willing  to  go  out  as  mission- 
aries ;  those  secured  for  the  purpose  were  to  report  their  names 
to  the  secretary  of  the  Society,  who,  after  consultation  with  the 
Bishop  of  London,  was  to  decide  to  what  places  they  should  be 
sent.2  Among  other  things  it  was  provided  "  that  before  their 
departure,  they  should  wait  upon  his  Grace  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  their  Metropolitan,  and  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London, 
their  Diocesan,  to  receive  their  Paternal  Benediction  and  In- 
structions." ^  They  were  further  required  to  keep  up  a  constant 
and  regular  correspondence  with  the  secretary ;  to  send,  every 
six  months,  a  statement  «of  the  condition  of  their  respective  par- 
ishes ;  and  to  communicate  what  was  done  at  the  meetings  of 
the  clergy,  and  "  whatsoever  else  may  concern  the  Society."  * 

From  this  time  the  Society  continued,  on  the  whole,  to  be  a 
refining  and  elevating  force,  striving  to  devote  itself  wholly  to 
spiritual  concerns,  rarely  meddling  with  politics  as  such,  and 
apparently  not  desiring  to  meddle  with  them.  Thus,  when  the 
"  Church  Act "  of  South  Carolina  arrived  in  England  for  con- 
firmation, November  4,  1704,  the  Society,  at  a  meeting  held  in 
St.  Paul's,  declared  that  by  the  act  in  question  "  the  ministers 
of  South  Carolina  will  be  subjected  too  much  to  the  pleasure  of 
the  people,  and  therefore  they  agree  to  recommend  this  matter 
to  the  Wisdom  of  the  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the 
Lord  Bishop  of  London  to  take  such  care  herein  as  they  shall 

^  Accozint  of  the  Society.,  etc.,  14  if.     For  the  text  of  the  Society's  charter, 
see  its  Collection  of  Papers  (1715),  1-13. 
^  Account  of  the  Society^  etc.,  14. 
^  Ibid.  19. 
*  Ibid.  26. 


36  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTOISr. 

think  proper."  ^  In  the  interim,  until  a  decision  should  be 
reached,  it  declined  to  send  any  more  ministers  to  the  Caro- 
linas.  As  it  did  not  wish  to  rule  the  people,  so  it  did  not  wish 
the  people  to  rule  the  Society  or  its  ministers ;  it  sought  only 
sufficient  independence  for  the  free  scope  of  its  missionary  activ- 
ity, and  wished  to  leave  all  other  matters  to  its  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical superiors  —  the  king,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and 
the  Bishop  of  London.     This  was  its  policy,  or  rather  its  ideal. 

Unfortunately  this  ideal  was  not  always  fully  realized ;  for 
no  sooner  was  the  Society  established  on  a  firm  foundation 
than  it  began  to  direct  its  efforts  toward  substituting  a  control 
by  bishops  resident  in  the  colonies  for  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  London.  However  innocent  this  intention  may  have 
been,  the  Anglican  Episcopal  organization  was  too  closely  in- 
terwoven with  the  English  governmental  system  to  make  it  pos- 
sible to  keep  the  matter  within  the  spiritual  field.  Moreover, 
the  Independent  congregations  in  America  knew  the  Church  of 
England  bishop  only  as  an  oppressive  tyrant,  backed  by  the 
strong  arm  of  the  civil  power.  For  these  reasons,  the  attempt 
of  the  Society  to  secure  an  American  episcopate  involved  not 
only  itself  but  the  whole  colonial  church  in  a  series  of  poHtical 
contests,  the  outcome  of  which  marked  the  first  great  crisis  in 
American  history.  Just  how  this  crisis  came  about  will  be  shown 
in  a  later  chapter. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  of  interest  to  consider  a  few  typical 
cases  of  the  activity  of  Compton  and  of  his  successor,  Robinson. 
A  striking  instance  of  Compton's  watchful  care  over  the  church 
beyond  the  seas  may  be  found  in  a  clause  in  the  Pennsyl- 
vania charter,  which  makes  an  extremely  liberal  provision  for 
such  Episcopalians  as  may  wish  to  found  a  church  or  churches 
in  the  colony.^     The  insertion  of  this  provision  was  due  to  the 

^  Account  of  the  Society^  etc.,  75-79. 

2  Extract  from  the  grant  of  Pennsylvania,  March  4,  1680-1681  :  "And  Our 
further  pleasure  is,  and  wee  doe  hereby,  for  us,  our  heirs  and  Successors, 
charge  and  require,  that  if  any  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  Province,  to  the 
number  of  Twenty,  shall  at  any  time  hereafter  be  desirous,  and  shall  by  any 
writeing,  or  by  any  person  deputed  for  them,  signify  such  their  desire  to  the 
Bishop  of  London  that  any  preacher  or  preachers,  to  be  approved  of  by  the 
said  Bishops,  may  be  sent  unto  them  for  their  instruction,  that  then  such 


THE  CHURCH  IN  PENNSYLVANIA. 


37 


bishop's  efforts.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Lords  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Privy  Council  for  the  affairs  of  Trade  and  Plantations, 
held  at  Whitehall  January  22,  1680,  to  consider  the  draft  of  the 
patent  constituting  William  Penn  absolute  proprietary  of  the 
tract  of  land  later  known  as  Pennsylvania,  he  presented  a  paper 
desiring  "that  Mr.  Penn  be  obliged,  by  his  patent,  to  admit  a 
chaplain,  of  his  Lordship's  appointment,  upon  the  request  of 
any  number  of  planters."  As  a  result  of  this  application,  the 
Lords,  in  a  meeting  held  on  the  24th  of  February,  passed  the 
following  resolution  :  "The  Lord  Bishop  of  Londoji  is  desired  to 
prepare  a  draught  of  a  law  to  be  passed  in  this  country,  for  the 
settling  of  the  Protestant  religion."  ^  Thus,  in  consequence  of 
Compton's  efforts,  the  Church  of  England  was  at  least  insured 
of  a  definite  recognition  in  the  colony  of  Pennsylvania.^  Penn 
seems  to  have  been  on  a  friendly  footing  with  him,  and  on  one 
occasion  at  least  thankfully  accepted  and  followed  one  of  his 
suggestions.^ 

.  Occasionally  during  this  period  the  Bishop  of  London  was 
called  upon  to  exercise  his  authority  in  a  case  of  discipline.  Per- 
haps the  best  example  is  that  of  the  Reverend  Francis  Phihps, 
curate  of  the  Reverend  Robert  Jenney,  rector  of  Christ  Church, 

preacher  or  preachers  shall  and  may  be  and  reside  within  the  said  province, 
without  any  denial  or  molestation  whatsoever  "  (Poore,  Charters  and  Consti- 
tutions, ii.  1515).  See  also  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  ii.  (Pennsylvania) 
5  ;  Perry,  A^nerican  Episcopal  Church,  i.  224  ;  Proud,  Pennsylvattia,  i.  186. 

^  Perry,  Atfierican  Episcopal  Church,  i.  224,  note  i  ;  Perry,  Historical 
Collections,  ii.  (Pennsylvania)  497-498;  Hazard,  Register  of  Pennsylvania,  i. 
269-270. 

■^  Stilld,  in  his  Address  delivered  on  the  two  hundredth  anniversary  of 
Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  November  ig,  1895,  says  "(p-  8)  that  even  the 
missionaries  in  Pennsylvania  had  the  privileges  of  membership  in  the  "  Estab- 
lished Church  of  America,"  accountable  only  to  the  Bishop  of  London  and 
his  "Church  Courts."  One  wonders  what  the  "Established  Church  of 
America"  was.  "Church  courts"  is  a  rather  formal  name  for  the  small 
powers  of  jurisdiction  which  the  commissaries  generally  exercised ;  moreover, 
the  Society  certainly  claimed  some  accountability  for  its  missionaries. 

^  In  a  letter  dated  Philadelphia,  August  14,  1683,  Penn  says :  "  I  have  fol- 
lowed the  Bishop  of  Londori's  counsel,  by  buying  and  not  taking  away  the 
natives'  land ;  with  whom  I  have  settled  a  very  kind  correspondence  "  (Proud, 
Pennsylvania,  i.  274).  See  also  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  224, 
note  I. 


38  THE  WORK  OF  COMPTON. 

Philadelphia.  Early  in  the  year  171 5,  Philips,  being  accused  of 
misdemeanors,  was  put  into  prison.  On  promising  to  behave 
himself  he  was  released ;  but  no  sooner  did  he  regain  his  liberty 
than  he  raised  a  mob  of  his  supporters  and  resumed  his  place, 
announcing  that  he  would  stay  in  it  in  spite  of  any  orders  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  to  the  contrary.  On  March  17  the  clergy 
of  Pennsylvania  took  occasion,  in  their  congratulatory  message 
to  Robinson  on  his  accession  to  the  see  of  London,  to  review  the 
case  of  Philips  up  to  the  point  where  he  had  defied  the  authority 
of  his  diocesan,  and  to  pray  for  his  removal.  Philips's  friends 
were  equally  active  ;  several  of  them,  headed  by  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor Gookin  and  including  many  prominent  members  of  the 
vestry,  drew  up  and  signed  a  memorial  to  the  Bishop  of  London 
in  which  they  exonerated  Philips  from  all  blame  and  prayed  for 
his  continuance  among  them.  Philips  himself  wrote  to  the  sec- 
retary of  the  Society,  beseeching  him  to  interest  the  new  bishop 
in  his  behalf.  In  this  letter  he  denies  all  the  charges  against 
himself,  as  mere  fabrications  of  his  enemies.  Of  one  of  his  chief 
accusers,  he  says,  and  appeals  to  Reverend  Evan  Evans,  a  prom- 
inent Pennsylvania  clergyman,  to  support  his  statements :  "  It 
was  his  daily  practice  in  the  last  reign  in  all  companies  to  rail  at 
the  church  and  state ;  and  as  to  the  canons  —  he  has  more  than 
once  in  my  hearing  at  a  public  meeting  of  the  Vestry  declared 
that  they  were  of  no  force  here,  so  that  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
though  he  is  no  member  of  the  Vestry  now,  his  next  assertion 
will  be  that  we  are  not  under  the  cognizance  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  ^  and  consequently  that  the  people  may  call  or  displace 
a  minister  after  the  independent  mode  when  they  please  but 
this  I  believe  he  will  scarcely  be  able  to  accomphsh  during  my 
abode  here."  The  next  step  in  the  controversy  was  an  appeal 
from  the  wardens  and  vestry  of  the  church  in  Philadelphia  in 
behalf  of  Philips,  who  evidently  had  a  large  party  behind  him. 
Their  argument  for  restoring  the  offending  clergyman  to  his 
curacy  is  certainly  a  curious  one.  After  assuring  their  Bishop 
of  their  recognition  of  his  jurisdiction  over  the  behavior  of  the 

^  The  allusion  to  the  Bishop  of  London  has  the  appearance  of  being  lugged 
in  for  the  sake  of  currying  favor,  particularly  in  the  face  of  the  alleged  defiant 
attitude  which  Philips  had  shown  a  short  time  before. 


THE  CHURCH  IN  MARYLAND.  39 

clergy  in  all  except  criminal  cases,  they  beg  his  Lordship  to 
reinstate  Philips  because  they  do  not  want  the  decision  of  a 
Quaker  court  of  judicature  upon  the  conduct  of  a  Church  of 
England  clergyman  to  prevail,  for  the  reason  that  it  may  give 
justification  for  attempts  upon  his  Lordship's  prerogative  in  the 
future.  But  all  these  attempts  of  Lieutenant  Governor  Gookin, 
and  of  the  wardens,  vestry,  and  members  of  the  Philadelphia 
church,  proved  unavailing.  When  Bishop  Robinson  finally  de- 
cided against  them,  they  submitted  and  gave  up  possession  of 
the  church.  Although  Philips  went  home  to  plead  his  cause  in 
person,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  was  ever  reinstated.^ 
r  In  the  proprietary  colony  of  Maryland,  although  the  Church 
of  England  was  established  there,  the  Bishop  of  London  exer- 
cised very  little  authority  except  during  the  administration  of 
a  governor  who  happened  to  be  friendly  to  his  interests.  This 
fact  is  well  illustrated  in  the  struggle  over  the  appointment 
of  a  successor  to  Thomas  Bray,  the  first  commissary .^  Soon 
after  Bray's  return  from  Maryland,  finding  that  in  all  likelihood 
he  would  never  be  able  to  go  there  again,  he  resigned  his 
office,  and  in  August,  1700,  reminded  his  diocesan  of  the 
urgent  necessity  of  sending  over  a  successor.  At  once  the 
question  arose  as  to  how  means  might  be  obtained  for  his 
support.  In  1694-1695  the  governor  and  assembly  had  passed 
an  act  vesting  the  office  of  judge  in  testamentary  causes  in 
such  ecclesiastical  person  as  the  Bishop  of  London  for  the 
time  being  should  commissionate  under  him ;  the  income 
attached  to  the  office  was  to  be  ;£300.  Although  Bray  had 
obtained  the  position,  he  had  been  deprived  of  the  stipend  by 
an  intrigue.  His  constant  aim  was  to  strengthen  the  authority 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  colony.  Having  failed  in 
an  effort  to  secure  the  appointment   of   a   suffragan   bishop, 

1  For  the  documentary  evidence  on  the  case,  see  Perry,  Historical  Collections^ 
ii.  (Pennsylvania)  81,  87-89,  90-93,  97-98. 

2  See  an  account  of  the  whole  matter  by  Bray  himself,  in  "  a  Memorial 
giving  a  true  and  Just  account  of  the  affair  of  the  Commissary  of  Maryland, 
with  respect  to  which  the  New  Governor,  Coll  Seymour,  has  made  so  great 
Complaints  of  his  ill  usage  by  me,"  etc.,  1705  (Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv. 
(Maryland)  57-63). 


40  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTON: 

he  now  returned  to  the  plan  of  governing  by  a  commissary, 
who  was,  however,  to  be  invested  with  the  power  of  induction 
hitherto  exercised  by  the  governor.^  He  recommended  as  his 
successor  in  the  commissarial  office  the  Reverend  Michael 
Huetson,  Archdeacon  of  Armagh,  a  candidate  who  proved 
acceptable  to  the  Bishop  of  London.  To  provide  for  his 
support,  Bray  proposed  that  the  judgeship  of  testamentary 
causes  be  given  to  him.  This  proposal  he  justified  on  the  fol- 
lowing grounds :  "  since  the  office  of  Judge  in  Testamentary 
Causes  is  an  office  of  an  Ecclesiastical  nature ;  an  office  that 
the  Country  have  desired  might  be  vested  in  an  Ecclesiastical 
person,  and  more  particularly  in  the  Bishop  of  London's  Com- 
missary for  his  support ;  and  since  it  is  an  office  that  He,  the 
Governor,  could  not  execute  himself,  being  that  appeals  lie 
from  that  court  to  himself,  as  Chancellor,  or  at  leastwise  to 
himself  in  Council ;  an  office,  too,  that  must  be  bestowed  on 
some  one."  The  Bishop  felt  the  force  of  Bray's  reasoning, 
and,  during  a  dinner  held  at  Fulham,  at  which  Bray,  Huetson, 
and  Colonel  Seymour,  the  governor-elect,  were  all  present, 
made  the  proposal  to  the  new  governor.  Seymour  not  only 
refused  to  grant  the  request,  but  violently  denounced  the  nego- 
tiations of  Bray  as  underhanded,  and  slandered  him,  in  this 
and  many  other  particulars,  not  only  to  Bishop  Compton  but 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  as  well.  In  a  word,  he  be- 
trayed so  curious  a  behavior  that  Bray  hazarded  the  suspicion 
in  his  memorial  that  there  must  have  been  some  fundamental 

I  ground  for  his  opposition  to  a  commissary .^  However  that 
may  have  been,  Seymour  gained  his  point,  Huetson  did  not  go 
to  Maryland,  and  for  many  years  the  Bishop  of  London  re- 
mained without  an  official  representative  in  the  colony. 

J  In  the  absence  of  a  commissary,  a  plan  was  evolved  by  the 
assembly  to  establish  a  spiritual  court  made  up  of  the  governor 

^  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions^  ii.  (Maryland)  121  fF.  Hawks  regards 
this  as  a  very  effective  scheme  for  giving  to  the  commissary  control  over  the 
admission  of  clergy  for  whose  conduct  he  was  responsible.  But  the  fact  that 
presentation  remained  with  the  governor  was  somewhat  of  a  handicap. 

-  Possibly  the  fact  that  the  new  commissary  was  to  have  the  power  of  induc- 
tion may  account  for  Seymour's  attitude. 


COMMISSARIAL   AUTHORITY  IN  MARYLAND.  41 

and  three  laymen.  This  court  was  "  to  superintend  the  conduct 
of  the  clergy  "  and  to  take  '*  cognizance  of  all  cases  of  immoral- 
ity on  the  part  of  a  clergyman,  and  of  non-residence  in  his 
parish  for  thirty  days  at  one  time "  ;  its  power  was  also  to 
extend  to  the  deprivation  of  livings  and  to  suspension  from  the 
ministry.     The  bill  passed  both  houses,  but  M^as  not  signed  by 

'the  governor  for  want  of  instructions.  Naturally,  the  scheme 
was  opposed  by  the  clergy,  who  wrote  to  their  diocesan  that 
"  it  would  be  establishing  presbyterianism  in  the  colony,  upon 
the  neck  of  the  Church,  and  raise  an  effectual  bar  to  the  intro- 
duction of  Episcopacy,  which  is  generally  wished  for  by  the 
clergy  of  this  province."  ^ 

Commissarial  authority  was  resumed  in  Maryland  soon  after 
the  accession  of  Governor  Hart,  a  man  most  friendly  to  the 
interests  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  province.  In  a 
letter  written  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  September  6,  171 5,  he 
recommended  the  appointment  of  two  commissaries,  if  a  suffra- 
gan could  not  be  secured.^  The  nominees  suggested  by  him 
were  Christopher  Wilkinson  for  the  Eastern,  and  Jacob  Hender- 
son for  the  Western  Shore.  The  nominations  were  confirmed 
in  the  following  year  by  the  bishop,  and  the  commissaries  at 

•  once  entered  office.^  In  spite  of  the  friendliness  of  the  gov- 
ernor, however,  they  had  a  difficult  time  in  the  exercise  of  their 
functions ;  for  the  assembly  and  the  people  of  the  higher 
classes  were  extremely  hostile  to  the  established  clergy  and  to 
the  attempts  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don.* "  It  is  a  sad  truth,"  write  the  commissaries,  "  that  we 
must  declare  that  we  have  not  one  friend  in  the  province, 
except  our  governor  to  make  our  application  to ;  nor  any 
access  to,  nor  place,  nor  employ  in  the  government,  nor  friend 
in  the  world  that  we  know  of,  but  your  lordship  to  stand  by  us."  ^ 

^  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  129-131. 

2  Perry,  Historical  Collections.,  iv.  (Maryland)  80-82. 

^Yi^mks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  n.  (Maryland)  150. 

■*  See  the  correspondence  between  Bishop  Robinson  and  his  commissaries 
in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland),  and  in  Fulhain  MSS.,  passim. 

5  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  154.  For  the  whole 
letter,  see  Perry,  Historical  Colleciiotis,  iv.  (Maryland)  89-91. 


42  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTOIV. 

The  Bishop  seems  to  have  exercised  his  good  offices  with  Lord 
Baltimore,  who  wrote  to  the  commissaries,  March  23,  171 8,  that 
he  acknowledged  the  establishment  and  the  authority  of  the 
Bishop  of  London,  and  would  do  all  in  his  power  to  further 
the  interests  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Maryland.^ 

FaiHng  in  an  attempt  to  get  a  bill  through  the  assembly 
acknowledging  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  the 
province,^  Wilkinson  sought  from  that  body  an  authorization  of 
his  right  to  punish  two  clergymen  accused  of  immorality,  one 
of  drinking  and  swearing,  the  other  of  an  incestuous  marriage. 
Owing  to  the  political  influence  of  the  accused,  and  to  the  fear 
of  setting  a  precedent,  which  prevailed  among  the  independent 
elements  in  the  colony,  the  proposal  was  defeated.^  These  two 
failures  were  a  sore  blow  to  the  development  of  any  ecclesiastical 
authority  in  Maryland ;  and  henceforth  the  commissaries  found 
it  harder  than  ever  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  discipline.  An 
indication  of  their  discouragement  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  they 
found  it  no  longer  worth  while  to  require  church  wardens  to 
present  offenders.*  Even  the  indomitable  Henderson,  who  was 
far  more  aggressive  than  his  colleague  Wilkinson,  at  length  recog- 
nized the  futility  of  attempting  to  exercise  anything  save  an  ad- 
visory and  exhortatory  control  over  the  clergy  under  his  charge.^ 

^  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  99. 

^  The  bill  passed  the  council  and  was  supported  by  the  governor. 

^  For  an  account  of  this  affair,  see  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Cotitribittions,  ii. 
(Maryland)  162  ;  also  two  letters  from  Wilkinson  to  Bishop  Robinson,  dated 
respectively  April  25  and  May  26,  171 8,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv. 
(Maryland)  106-109.  There  seems  to  have  been  considerable  discussion 
as  to  the  relative  limits  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power.  In  the  letter  of 
April  25,  for  example,  Wilkinson  reports  that  it  has  been  decided  that,  when 
the  ecclesiastical  punishment  is  not  corporeal  or  pecuniary,  temporal  punish- 
ment may  follow.  He  thus  shows  that  the  status  of  ecclesiastical  punishment 
was  at  least  recognized. 

*  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  170. 

^  Henderson  to  Bishop  Robinson,  June  17,  17 18  :  "As  there  is  no  hopes  of 
an  Act  of  Assembly  to  support  it  [the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London], 
and  your  Lordship  has  been  pleased  to  order  me  not  to  set  up  a  Court  in  form, 
I  have  faithfully  obeyed  ever  since  the  receipt  of  your  Lordship's  Letter,  and 
my  only  endeavours  for  the  future  shall  be  to  keep  a  decorum  amongst  the 
Clergy"  (Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  109-112). 


COMMISSARY  BLAIR   I  AT  VIRGINIA.  43 

Although  in  Maryland  it  was  possible  for  a  hostile  governor 
to  prevent  the  commissarial  representative  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  from  taking  up  the  duties  of  his  office,  in  Virginia  pre- 
.  cisely  the  reverse  was  true.  Commissary  Blair  became  involved 
in  quarrels  with  two  successive  governors,  Edmund  Andros 
and  Francis  Nicholson,^  concerning  the  extent  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical functions  intrusted  to  them  as  ordinaries  and  their  methods 
of  administering  those  functions ;  and  he  was  able  eventually  to 
procure  the  dismissal  of  Andros,  and  probably  to  contribute  an 
important  influence  toward  the  recall  of  Nicholson.^ 

The  departure  of  his  enemies  was  not  so  clear  a  victory  for 
-  Blair  as  he  might  have  had  reason  to  hope.  The  struggle  had 
stirred  up  much  feeling  among  the  clergy,  who  were  particu- 
larly annoyed  by  what  they  regarded  as  the  commissary's  exces- 
sive and  uncalled-for  meddling  in  their  affairs ;  nor  were  their 
diocesan's  efforts  to  smooth  matters  over  of  much  avail.^ 
•  Eventually  quiet  was  restored,  but  only  at  the  cost  of  great 
'  concessions  on  Blair's  part.  He  was  forced  to  resign  himself 
to  comparative  inactivity,  contenting  himself,  for  the  most  part, 
with  the  exercise  of  the  bare  routine  duties  of  his  office. 

The  extent  of  these  duties  can  be  best  understood  from  a 
letter  which  he  wrote,  November  18,  17 14,  to  Robinson,  the 
new  Bishop  of  London.  Having  acknowledged  the  receipt  of 
his  commission  and  thanked  his  Lordship  for  it,  he  expresses 
a  hope  that  he  may  fulfil  his  duties  in  a  manner  satisfactory 
to  his  new  diocesan.  "  But,"  he  adds,  "  it  is  necessary  that  I 
acquaint  your  Lordship  that  this  Country  having  a  great  aver- 
sion to  spiritual  courts,  the  late  Lord  Bishop  of  London  directed 

^Andros  was  governor  from  1692  to  1698,  Nicholson  from  1698  to  1705. 

2  The  history  of  the  quarrels,  particularly  of  that  with  Nicholson,  is  very 
complicated,  and  is  much  obscured  by  the  violent  recriminations  of  the  respec- 
tive parties.  The  documents  printed  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Vir- 
ginia) offer  an  opportunity  to  one  who  cares  to  trace  the  contentions  through 
their  various  ramifications.  For  a  recent  account,  see  Daniel  Esten  Motley, 
Life  of  Commissary  Jajnes  Blair,  43  ff.,  a  work  which  only  came  to  the  author's 
hands  after  the  present  chapter  was  in  type. 

^  The  whole  story  of  the  relations  between  the  Bishop  of  London,  his  com- 
missary, and  the  clergy  of  Virginia  may  be  found  in  Perry,  Historical  Collec- 
tions, i.  (Virginia)  144  ff. 


44  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTON. 

me,  to  make  use  of  the  power  granted  me,  in  a  like  commission 
I  by  him,  chiefly  to  restrain  the  irregularities  of  the  Clergy  with- 
out meddling  with  the  Laity;  except  our  Virginia  Laws  &  Govt 
should  give  countenance  to  a  further  exercise  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical discipline,  so  that  the  Chief  of  my  business  has  been, 
where  I  have  heard  of  any  complaints  of  the  Clergy,  first  to  try 
to  reclaim  them  by  monitory  letters ;  &  when  that  would  not  do, 
I  have  had  a  publick  visitation  of  their  Church,  and  upon  an 
open  trial  of  the  facts,  have  either  acquitted  or  suspended  the 
Minister  as  the  case  required.  I  have  made  in  all  my  time  but 
few  examples  of  this  Kind,  but  I  find  it  necessary  not  to  be  too 
slack  as  on  the  other  hand  I  am  not  suspected  of  too  great 

•  severity,  the  great  Scarcity  of  clergymen  among  us,  obliges  me 
of  the  two  to  incline  rather  to  the  methods  of  gentleness.  My 
Lord,  I  inform  your  Lordship,  truly  of  these  things,  that  if  you 
Judge  it  necessary  to  give  any  further  directions,  you  may  take 

•  measures  accordingly."  ^  From  this  account  it  is  evident  that 
the  Virginia  commissary,  like  his  Maryland  colleagues,  at  this 
time  pretended  to  no  coercive  jurisdiction,  but  confined  himself 
to  mere  supervision  and  admonition,  with  an  occasional  attempt 
at  discipline.  Indeed,  the  commissary  often  found  it  difficult 
to  exercise  even  this  small  amount  of  oversight ;  for  it  appears 
from  an  address  of  the  clergy  to  Bishop  Robinson,  dated  April, 
1 719,  that,  although  visitations  were  attempted  by  the  com- 
missary, he  met  with  so  many  difficulties,  from  the  refusal  of 
the  church  wardens  to  take  their  oaths  or  to  make  presentments, 
as  well  as  from  the  general  aversion  to  anything  like  a  spiritual 
court,  that  little  could  be  done  in  that  direction.^ 

In  the  opinion  of  a  careful  contemporaneous  observer,  the 
commissarial  office  was  not,  on  the  whole,  a  success.^  The 
commentator  suggests,  as  a  remedy  for  the  evils  of  his  time, 

^  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  130-131. 

^  See  "Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  held  at  the  College  of 
William  and  Mary  in  the  City  of  Williamsburgh,  in  April,  171 9,"  Ibid.  199- 
217. 

3  "  Which  Office  and  Name  has  not  appeared  well-pleasing  to  the  People 
and  Clergy,  for  Reasons  I  can't  account  for ;  neither  has  it  obtained  the  Power 
and  Good  Effect  as  might  have  been  expected  "  (Jones,  Present  State  of 
Virginia,  99). 


A  BISHOP  SUGGESTED  FOR    VIRGINIA.  45 

the  appointment  of  "  a  Person  whose  Office  upon  this  Occasion 
should  be  somewhat  uncommon,  till  a  Bishop  be  established 
in  those  Parts ;  ^  who  might  pave  out  a  Way  for  the  Introduc- 
tion of  Mitres  into  the  English  America,  so  greatly  wanting 
there.  This  Person,"  he  continues,  "  should  have  Instructions 
and  Powers  for  discharging  such  Parts  of  the  Office,  of  a 
Bishop,  of  a  Dean,  and  of  an  Arch-Deacon,  as  Necessity  re- 
quires, and  the  Nature  of  those  sacred  Functions  will  permit ; " 
he  should  reside  in  some  parish  in  Virginia,  and  be  obHged  to 
make  a  "  Progress  (for  the  People  will  not  approve  of  a  Visita- 
tion)" every  spring  and  autumn  in  Virginia  and  North  Caro- 
lina, "as  his  Discretion  shall  best  direct  him."  He  suggests  a 
salary  of  ^100  a  year  for  travelling  expenses,  which  might  be 
secured  from  the  governmeht  out  of  the  quitrents,  as  the  com- 
missary's salary  was  obtained.  "  As  for  the  Establishment  of 
Episcopacy  in  Virginia,  it  would  be  of  excellent  Service,  if 
Caution  was  taken  not  to  transplant  with  it  the  corrupt  Abuses 
of  spiritual  Courts,  which  the  People  dread  almost  as  much  as 
an  Inquisition ;  but  these  their  Fears  would  soon  be  dissipated, 
when  by  blessed  Experience  they  might  feel  the  happy  Influ- 
ence of  that  holy  Order  among  them,  free  from  the  terrible 
Notions  that  Misrepresentations  of  regular  Church  Government 
have  made  them  conceive."  He  conceives  the  salary  to  be  one 
of  the  chief  drawbacks  to  the  establishment  of  an  episcopacy, 
but  thinks  that  a  contribution  toward  it  might  be  taken  from 
the  superior  clergy  and  collegians  of  the  universities,  until  the 
usefulness  of  a  bishop  had  been  proved  by  trial ;  afterward 
some  other  means  might  be  employed,  as,  for  example,  the 
appropriation  of  a  tract  of  land.^  Jones's  scheme  was  never 
even  considered  by  those  in  power ;  but  his  observations  are  of 

1  This  suggestion  of  a  bishop  for  Virginia  is  the  third  I  have  met.  The 
other  is  in  a  merely  casual  letter  from  "  Mr.  Nicholas  Moreau  to  the  Right 
Honorable  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Lichfield  and  Coventry,  his  Majesty's  High 
Almoner,"  April  12,  1697.  After  a  panegyric  of  Nicholson,  the  writer  says: 
"  An  eminent  bishop  of  the  same  character  being  sent  over  with  him  will  make 
Hell  tremble  and  settle  the  Church  of  England  in  those  parts  forever"  (Perry, 
Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  29-32). 

^  Jones.  Present  State  of  Virginia,  Appendix,  Scheme  ii.,  passim,  particu- 
larly pp.  98-99,  no. 


46  THE  WORK  OF  COMPTON: 

interest  as  an  instance  of  contemporary  opinion  on  the  existing 
ecclesiastical  situation  in  Virginia. 

The  attempts  which  culminated  in  the  establishment  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  Carolinas  afford  an  interesting 
instance  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  influence  with  the  English 
government.  From  both  charters,  as  well  as  from  the  Funda- 
mental Constitutions,  although  these  instruments  specifically 
provided  that  toleration  should  be  granted  to  all  Christians,  it 
is  evident  that  the  establishment  was  contemplated  in  the  minds 
.  of  the  founders.  The  first  step  in  the  direction  of  an  exclusive 
establishment  was  taken  on  May  6,  1704,  when  Governor 
Nathaniel  Johnson  procured  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  exclude 
dissenters  from  the  House  of  Representatives.  Henceforth 
every  man  who  hoped  to  become  a  member  of  the  assembly 
would  be  obliged  to  take  the  oaths  and  subscribe  to  the  declara- 
tions appointed  by  that  body,  to  conform  to  the  rehgion  and 
worship  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  to  receive  the  sacra- 
ment according  to  the  usages  of  that  church.^  This  proceeding 
at  once  raised  a  protest  in  the  colony,  particularly  from  the 
members  of  Colleton  County,  who  sent  an  agent,  one  John 
Ash,  to  England  by  way  of  Virginia.  He  had  an  interview 
with  the  Palatine,  from  whom,  however,  he  obtained  no  satis- 
faction.    He  died  in  England  soon  after.^ 

Not  content  with  the  passage  of  the  act  mentioned  above, 
Governor  Johnson  took  the  further  step  of  instituting  a  high 
commission  court,  composed  of  twenty  laymen,  who  should 
form  a  corporation  for  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, 
with  full  power  to  remove  ministers  not  only  for  immorality  but 
also  for  imprudence,  that   is   to  say,  for  any  prejudice  which 

^  Alexander  Hewit,  South  Carolina  (Carroll,  Historical  Collections,  i.),  147  ; 
Grimke,  Laws  of  South  Carolina,  No.  224  (May  6,  1704).  This  act,  which  was 
on  its  face  contrary  to  the  charters  and  the  Fundamental  Constitutions,  was 
carried  in  the  South  Carolina  assembly  by  the  close  vote  of  12  to  11  (Dalcho, 
Protestant  Episcopal  Chjirch  in  South-Carolina,  53).  Its  purpose,  according 
to  a  good  authority,  was  not  "  religion's  sake,"  but  the  sudden  exclusion  of  the 
dissenters,  most  of  whom  were  on  the  side  of  those  who  were  seeking  to  make 
an  inquiry  into  the  illegal  practices  of  the  ruling  party  (Rivers,  South  Carolina, 
122  ;  cf.  Oldmixon,  in  Carroll,  Historical  Collections,  ii.  431). 

2  Hewit,  South  Carolina  (Carroll,  Historical  Collections,  i.),  148-149. 


THE  SOUTH  CAROLIN-A   CHURCH  ACTS.  47 

might  be  taken  against  them.^  Here,  of  course,  was  a  direct 
encroachment  on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  an 
argument  of  which  the  greatest  possible  use  was  made  in  the 
later  complaints  against  the  measure.  In  England  the  two 
acts,  though  opposed  by  John  Archdale,  were  ratified  by  the 
requisite  four  proprietors,  who  further  manifested  their  approval 
of  the  proceedings  by  sending  Johnson  a  letter  lauding  him  for 
his  zeal  in  the  service  of  the  church.  After  the  death  of  Ash, 
his  papers  came  into  the  hands  of  the  governor  and  council, 
who  suppressed  them.^ 

But  the  dissenters  were  still  far  from  discouraged,  so  long  as 
the  acts  remained  unratified  by  the  crown.  To  prevent  this 
final  step  they  sent  Joseph  Boone  to  England  to  argue  their 
cause.  He  presented  a  memorial  to  the  House  of  Lords  in  the 
name  of  his  constituents,  and  the  lords  addressed  the  queen, 
who  in  turn  referred  the  matter  to  the  Commissioners  of  Trade 
and  Plantations.  Soon  afterward  the  commissioners  returned 
a  report  declaring  that  the  assembly  of  Carolina  had  abused  its 
powers,  and  recommending  the  queen  to  revoke  the  charter  by 
a  writ  of  scire  facias.  In  pursuance  of  this  advice,  her  Majesty 
declared  the  acts  null  and  void,  without  issuing  the  scire  facias, 
however. 

Boone's  memorial,  in  which  he  was  joined  by  some  influential 
London  merchants,  is  chiefly  interesting  to  us  from  its  discussion 
of  the  effect  of  the  second  of  these  acts  on  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  London.  Its  last,  and  evidently  its  weightiest,  argu- 
ment is  as  follows  :  "  That  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  the 
colony  is  under  the  Bishop  of  London  ;  but  the  governor  and 
his  adherents  have  at  last  done  what  the  latter  often  threatened 
to  do,  totally  abolished  it ;  for  the  same  assembly  have  passed 
an  act,  whereby  twenty  lay-persons,  therein  named,  are  made  a 
corporation  for  the  exercise  of  several  exorbitant  powers,  to 
the  great  injury  and  oppression  of  the  people  in  general,  and 
for  the  exercise  of  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  with  absolute 

^  Hewit,  South  Carolina  (Carroll,  Historical  Collections,  i.).  For  a 
complete  description  of  the  two  acts,  see  North  Carolina  Records,  i.  635- 

637- 

^  Hawks  and  Perry,  South  Carolina  Church  Documents,  yz,  note. 


48  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTON. 

power  to  deprive  any  minister  of  the  Church  of  England  of  his 
benefice,  not  only  for  immorality  but  even  for  imprudence,  or 
incurable  prejudices  between  such  minister  and  his  parish, 
.  .  .  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  province  take  to  be  an  high 
ecclesiastical  commission-court,  destructive  to  the  very  being 
and  essence  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  to  be  held  in  the 
utmost  detestation  and  abhorrence  by  every  man  that  is  not  an 
enemy  to  our  constitution  in  church  and  state."  ^  Considering 
the  interest  of  Bishop  Compton  in  the  colonies,  and  the  fact  that 
he  was  one  of  the  commissioners  to  whom  the  act  was  referred, 
we  may  assume  with  reasonable  safety  that  it  was  largely  due 
to  him  that  the  acts  were  nullified.  On  November  30,  1706, 
the  very  day  on  which  the  governor  and  deputies  repealed  the 
measures  which  the  English  government  had  declared  void, 
the  assembly  passed  a  new  act,  which,  being  ratified  in  England 
as  lacking  in  objectionable  features,  continued  to  be  the  basis 
of  the  established  Church  of  England  in  South  Carolina  up  to 
the  Revolution.^ 

t  The  first  commissary  of  the  Carolinas  was  the  Reverend 
Gideon  Johnson,  who  was  appointed  to  that  office  and  also  to 
the  rectorship  of  St.  Philip's,  Charleston,  in  1707.  He  con- 
tinued to  officiate  in  both  positions  until  he  met  his  death  by 

•  drowning.  May  23,  1716.^  Apparently  he  performed  his  duties 
to  the  satisfaction  of  both  people  and  diocesan,  but  he  exercised 
very  little  jurisdiction.  It  is  even  uncertain  whether  he  held 
visitations;   if  he  did,  the  records  have  been  lost.* 

Johnson  was  succeeded  in  17 17  by  the  Reverend  William 
Treadwell  Bull,  who  served  till  1723.  Bull,  who  was  the  incum- 
bent of  St.  Paul's,  Colleton,  seems  to  have  held  annual  visita- 

^  Hewit,  South  Carolina  (Carroll,  Historical  Collections^  i.),  1 51-154 ;  North 
Carolina  Records,  i.  639. 

^  For  the  act  of  March  30,  1706,  see  Dalcho,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  South-Carolina,  75  ;  Rivers,  South  Carolina,  230 ;  Trott,  Laws,  No.  2,  pp. 
5-22 ;  Grimkd,  Laws  of  South  Carolina,  No.  258.  For  additional  acts  sup- 
plementing that  of  November  30,  1706,  see  Grimke,  i.  Laws,  No.  284  (April 
24,  1708);  No.  293  (April  8,  1710)  ;  No.  313  (January  7,  1712)  ;  No.  475 
(January  23,  1722). 

^  Letter  to  Bishop  Robinson,  May  31,  1716,  Fulham  MSS. 

*  Dalcho,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  South-Carolina,  116. 


ROBINSON'S  INSTRUCTIONS. 


49 


tions  and  to  have  maintained  some  sort  of  discipline ;  ^  but  the 
first  man  to  exercise  anything  like  real  commissarial  functions 
was  the  Reverend  Alexander  Garden,  who  arrived  at  Charleston 
in  1 7 19,  and  was  soon  afterward  made  rector  of  St.  Philip's. 
Appointed  commissary  for  North  and  South  CaroHna  and  the 
Bahama  Islands  in  1726,  he  held  his  first  visitation  in  1731, 
and  from  this  time  was  very  active  in  the  performance  of 
his  duties.^ 

Although  the  commissary's  authority  apparently  amounted  to 
very  little  in  practice  till  the  advent  of  Garden,  his  relations  to  the 
clergy  under  his  supervision  had  been  well  defined  some  time 
before.  This  fact  is  shown  by  the  following  set  of  instructions 
issued  by  Bishop  Robinson,  presumably  upon  the  appointment 
of  Johnson's  successor  :  — 

1.  "That  they  [the  clergy  of  the  Carolinas]  do  in  all  things 
Conform  themselves  to  the  Canons  and  Rubrickes,  and  in  Case 
of  any  Difficulty  apply  themselves  to  the  Commissary  for  his 
Advise. 

2.  "  That  no  Clergyman,  the  Commissary  excepted,  presume 
to  officiate,  or  by  any  means  concern  himself  in  the  affairs  of 
another  Parish,  unless  the  Minister  be  sick,  and  that  his  consent 
be  thereunto  first  had,  or  except  he  be  absent,  and  at  so  great  a 
distance  from  his  Parish  that  his  leave  cannot  be  timely  obtained  ; 
In  which  Case  any  perquisit  receiv'd  by  the  Ministers  officiating 
shall  be  by  him  without  the  least  deduction  given  to  the  Incum- 
bent unless  he  refuse  to  receive  the  same. 

3.  "  That  no  Minister  for  the  time  to  come  shall  take  upon 
him  to  supply  any  vacant  Parish  without  a  License  from  the 
Bishop  to  officiate  in  the  Province  of  N.  or  S.  CaroHna,  and  the 
Commissary's  appointment  for  the  particular  Parish  ;  and  that  as 
to  the  Care  of  such  Parishes,  the  Clergy  shall  govern  themselves 
by  such  Directions  as  the  Commissary  shall  give  them,  till  such 
time  as  the  Bishop's  pleasure  can  be  known. 

4.  "  That  when  the  Banns  are  superseded  by  a  Grant  of  a 
License,  the  Minister  shall  not  join  together  any  Persons  in  the 
holy  estate  of  Matrimony,  but  such   as  his  own   Parishioners, 

^  Tiffany,  Protestatit  Episcopal  Church,  230. 

2  Dalcho,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  South-Carolina,  98,  103,  1 16. 

E 


50  THE   WORK  OF  COMPTON. 

or  at  least  that  the  Woman  be  so.  And  that  when  the  Minister 
shall  have  married  such  couple,  He  shall  notify  the  same  within 
a  Month  after  to  the  Commissary. 

5.  "  That  the  Commissary  shall  strictly  and  punctually  hold 
a  general  Visitation  of  the  Clergy  each  Year,  and  that  he  shall 
visit  them  parochially  and  call  them  together  at  other  times,  as 
often  as  the  good  of  the  Church  and  the  Necessity  of  affairs 
shall  require  it.  And  that  at  such  Visitations,  He  shall  earnestly 
recommend  them  so  to  frame  their  own  Lives  as  may  adorn  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  our  Lord ;  and  so  to  discharge  all  the  parts  of 
their  Ministerial  Office  as  may  best  lead  to  the  Edification  of 
those  intrusted  to  their  care."  ^ 

Even  during  this  period,  when  the  Bishop  of  London  had  as 
yet  no  commission,  one  comes  across  frequent  instances  not  only 
of  the  actual  exercise,  but  of  the  formal  recognition,  of  his 
general  powers  as  diocesan.  For  example,  at  a  meeting  of  Janu- 
ary 20,  171 1,  convened  and  presided  over  by  Dr.  Sharpe,  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  and  attended  by  Dr.  Robinson,  Bishop  of  Bristol, 
Dr.  Bisse,  Bishop  of  St.  Davids,  Atterbury,  prolocutor  of  the 
lower  house  of  convocation,  and  Drs.  Smallridge  and  Stanhope, 
the  archbishop  made  a  proposition  concerning  the  providing  of 
bishops  for  the  plantations ;  but  "  as  the  Bishop  of  London, 
who  from  his  recognized  relation  to  the  colonial  churches  had  a 
right  to  be  first  consulted  on  such  a  project,  was  not  present, 
the  matter  was  dropped."  ^  Again,  Nicholas  Trott,  who  pub- 
lished his  Lazvs  in  1721,  dedicated  them  to  "William  .  .  .  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  Primate  of  all  England  and  Metropolitan 
.  .  .  and  to  the  .  .  .  Reverend  and  Honourable  the  Members  of 
the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts ; 
and  particularly  to  .  .  .  John  .  .  .  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  to 
whose  Jurisdiction  in  Matters  Ecclesiastical  the  British  Planta- 
tions in  America  do  belong."  ^  Moreover,  not  only  was  the 
Bishop  of  London's  position  as  colonial  diocesan  well  recog- 

1  Fidham  MSS.,  April  22,  1717,  "  Somerset  House  J.  L."  [John,  London]. 

2  Thomas  Newcome,  Life  of  Archbishop  Sharpe,  i.  532,  cited  by  Perry, 
American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  399. 

^  The  Laws  of  the  British  Plantations  in  America  relating  to  the  Church 
and  Clergy,  Religion  and  Learning  (London,  1721). 


RESULTS  OF  COMPTON'S  ACTIVITY.  5 1 

nized,  but  also  —  on  the  part  of  the  mother  country,  at  least  — 
great  care  was  taken  not  to  encroach  on  his  province.^ 

So  far  we  have  followed  the  results  of  the  work  of  Compton 
and  his  successor  Robinson,  a  work  in  which  the  former  had 
taken  the  distinctively  leading  part.  He  had  reestablished  the 
authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  the  colonies ;  he  had  stim- 
ulated individual  enterprise  toward  the  extension  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  those  territories ;  he  had  instituted  the  custom  of 
sending  commissaries  to  exercise  delegated  authority ;  and  most 
particularly,  he  had  been  one  of  the  chief  moving  causes  in  the 
formation  of  that  society  which  did  more  than  any  other  organi- 
zation toward  the  foundation  of  the  present  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  the  United  States. 

^  Compare  a  commission  issued  by  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 
to  Francis  Nicholson,  October  17,  171 2:  '•'Now  know  all  men  by  these 
Presents  that  the  Said  Society  Have  and  by  these  presents  Do  (as  much  as  in 
them  is  and  ought  to  be  in  most  humble  Submission  to  his  Majesty's  Royal 
Prerogative  and  Power  and  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  R*  Rev<i  the  Lord  Bishop 
of  London)  Request  and  Desire  the  said  Francis  Nicholson  to  make  Enquiry 
in  the  best  manner  and  by  such  Ways  and  Means  as  to  him  shall  be  thought 
fitt  and  requisite,  of  the  Society's  Missionaries,  Schoolmasters,  and  Catechists, 
with  respect  to  the  good  Purposes  and  Designs  of  the  Society  relating  to 
them,  And  of  the  present  State  of  the  Churches,  Glebes,  Parsonage-Houses, 
and  Libraries  (Sent  by  the  Society)  within  all  and  every  Such  Parts  of  Her 
Majesty's  Dominions  and  Countries  as  are  comprised  in  the  Commission  now 
granted  to  the  said  Francis  Nicholson  from  his  Majesty  for  the  purposes 
therein  mentioned,"  etc.  (Foote,  Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  i.  216-217,  where 
the  whole  instrument  is  cited.) 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE  ROYAL  COMMISSION:    GIBSOxN  TO  SHERLOCK,  1723-1748. 

Edmund  Gibson  took  control  of  the  see  of  London  in  1723,^ 
and  with  his  accession  a  conscientious  and  enthusiastic  prelate 
was  again  at  the  head  of  the  Anglican  church  in  the  colonies. 
In  his  first  address,  delivered  November  2,  he  said :  "  Being 
called  by  the  providence  of  God  to  the  government  and  admin- 
istration of  the  diocese  of  London,  by  which  the  care  of  the 
churches  in  the  foreign  plantations  is  also  devolved  upon  me,  I 
think  it  my  duty  to  use  all  proper  means  of  attaining  a  compe- 
tent knowledge  of  the  places,  persons,  and  matters  entrusted  to 
my  care.  And  as  the  plantations,  and  the  constitutions  of  the 
churches  there  are  at  a  far  greater  distance,  and  much  less  known 
to  me,  than  the  affairs  of  my  diocese  here  at  home,  so  it  is  the 
more  necessary  for  me  to  have  recourse  to  the  best  and  most 
effectual  methods  of  coming  to  a  right  knowledge  of  the  state 
and  condition  of  them,  which  knowledge  I  shall  not  fail,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  faithfully  to  employ  to  the  service  of  piety  and 
religion,  and  to  the  maintenance  of  order  and  regularity  in  the 
church."  2  What  a  similarity  in  spirit  to  Compton's  first  letter ! 
Moreover,  emulating  the  example  of  his  zealous  predecessor, 
Gibson  did  not  long  delay  the  execution  of  his  purpose  to  find 
out  all  that  it  was  possible  to  know  concerning  the  religious  con- 
dition of  the  colonies  under  his  charge ;  for  in  the  ensuing  year 
he  sent  out  sets  of  questions  to  be  answered  by  every  Episcopal 
commissary  and  clergyman  in  America.  Since  the  form  of  these 
queries  is  in  all  cases  practically  the  same,  those  addressed  to 
Commissary  Blair  of  Virginia  may  be  taken  as  a  sample :  — 

"  Queries  to  be  answered  by  Persons  who  were  Commissaries 
to  my  Predecessor. 

^  Le  Neve,  Fasti  Ecclesice  Atiglicance,  ii.  305. 

2  Wilberforce,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  107-108. 


BISHOP  GIBSON'S   QUERIES.  53 

"  [i.]  What  public  acts  of  assembly  have  been  made  &  con- 
firmed, relating  to  the  Chh  or  clergy  within  that  Gov*'  ?  .  .  . 

"  [2.]  How  oft  hath  it  been  usual  to  hold  a  visitation  of  the 
Clergy  ?  how  oft  have  you  Called  a  convention  of  them  ?  &  what 
has  been  the  business  ordinarily  done,  &  the  method  of  Proceed- 
ing in  such  meetings  ?  .  .  . 

"  [3.]  Does  any  Clergyman  ofificiate  who  has  not  the  Bp'^ 
licence  for  that  Gov*  ?  .  .  , 

"  [4.]  What  Parishes  are  there  which  have  yet  no  Churches 
nor  Ministers  ?  .  .  . 

"  [5.]  How  is  the  revenue  of  the  Churches  applied  which 
arises  during  the  vacancies  ?  .  .  . 

"  [6.]  What  are  the  ordinary  prices  of  the  necessaries  of  life 
there  ?  .  .  . 

"  [7-]  Can  you  suggest  anything  that  may  be  serviceable  to 
religion  &  conduce  to  the  ease  of  the  Clergy  &  their  more  com- 
fortable subsistence,  which  you  believe  to  be  fairly  practicable 
&  which  will  in  no  way  interfere  with  the  Authority  of  the 
Governor  nor  be  judged  an  infringment  of  the  rights  of  the 
People  ?  "  1 

This  list  was  replied  to,  query  for  query,  by  Commissary 
Blair,  July  17,  1724.^  The  other  commissaries  and  clergymen 
answered  with  more  or  less  regularity.  At  this  point,  however, 
attention  will  be  given  solely  to  the  reply  of  the  Reverend 
William  Gordon,  commissary  of  the  Barbadoes  ;  for  in  his  answer 
general  rather  than  particular  interests  dominate. 

On  the  receipt  of  Gibson's  letter,  Gordon  applied  for  advice  to 
Worsley,  governor  of  the  island  ;  for  he  was  unwilHng  to  do  any- 
thing without  the  approbation  of  his  excellency.^  To  this  appli- 
cation the  governor  made  the  following  reply  :  "  From  the  perusal 
of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Lord  Bishop  of  London's  Letter  to  you,  I  find  his 
Lordship  is  of  opinion  that  there  is  a  great  uncertainty  in  the 
ground  and  extent  of  his  Jurisdiction  in  the  Plantations,  and  as 
I  can't  authorize  any  Jurisdiction  the  Bishop  of   London  may 

1  Perry,  Historical  Collections^  i.  (Virginia)  257-260. 

2  Ibid. 

^See  Gordon  to  Worsley,  Barbadoes,  February   10,  1723-1724,  Fulharn 

MSS. 


54  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

have  till  I  know  what  it  is,  I  must  consider  his  Lordship's  Let- 
ters and  Queries  to  you  and  the  rest  of  the  Clergy  of  this  Island, 
as  private  Letters  and  Queries  to  you  and  them,  to  which  I 
think  you  ought  all  to  pay  the  honour  and  respect,  that  is  due 
to  so  learned,  so  good,  so  wise,  and  so  great  a  Prelate.  Your 
prudent  Conduct  in  this  affair  is  very  comendable  and  praise- 
worthy." Authorized  by  this  letter.  Commissary  Gordon  — 
unofficially,  as  it  would  seem  —  answered  the  queries,  and 
wrote  to  his  diocesan  a  long  letter  concerning  the  basis  and 
the  scope  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  colonial  jurisdiction,  as  he 
understood  it. 

He  begins  by  expressing  the  current  view  that  the  Bishop  of 
London  enjoys  his  authority  by  prescription  or  ancient  right. 
In  regard  to  the  rumor  that  it  rests  on  an  order  in  council 
granted  to  Laud,  he  says  that  he  has  searched  the  Council 
books  from  Queen  Elizabeth  to  King  Charles  without  finding 
any  trace  of  such  a  document.  He  then  goes  on  to  give 
his  reasons  for  believing  that  the  colonies  were  put  under 
the  care  of  the  Bishop  of  London  either  at  the  end  of  the  reign 
of  King  Charles  or  in  the  beginning  of  that  of  James  II. 
Having  completed  his  survey  of  the  origin  and  basis  of  the 
jurisdiction,  Gordon  proceeds  to  a  theoretical  discussion  of  its 
scope.  In  his  opinion,  even  if  no  order  in  council  had  ever 
been  issued,  the  temporary  orders  in  every  governor's  instruc- 
tions answer  the  same  purpose,  "  as  being  themselves  not  only 
Solemn  Orders  of  Council  pass'd  and  establish'd  but  also 
referr'd  to  and  expressly  enforc'd  by  Letters  Patent  under  the 
Broad  Seal."  Hence,  since  the  king  orders  the  various  gov- 
ernors "  to  give  all  countenance  and  encouragement  to  the 
exercise  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  excepting  as  before  excepted  ^  .  .  .  the  exercise  thereof 
is  well  warranted  by  .  .  .  Instructions  and  Authorities  and  by 
the  Commission  under  the  Great  Seal  by  which  these  are  espe- 
cially enforced."  It  may  very  well  be  objected,  he  argues,  that 
the  words,  "  so  far  as  conveniently  may  be,"  leave  it  to  the  dis- 

1  Worsley  to  Gordon,  February  15,  1723-1724,  Fulhatn  MSS. 

2  The  exceptions  related  to  powers  especially  reserved  to  the  governors. 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  BISHOP'S  AUTHORITY.  55 

cretion  of  the  particular  governors  as  to  whether  they  will 
allow  the  commissaries  to  exercise  authority  in  their  respective 
provinces.  He  thinks  that  this  is  a  serious  hmitation,  but  that 
when  the  commissary  proceeds  with  the  governor's  consent,  the 
instructions  are  a  sufficient  warrant  for  every  legal  act  of  his. 
Of  course  the  Bishop  of  London's  powers  are  of  uncertain 
tenure,  resting,  like  the  commissions  and  instructions,  on  the 
king's  pleasure ;  but,  concludes  Gordon,  "  until  the  king  actually 
Determines,  Alters,  or  Revokes  his  Commissions  &  Instructions 
they  are  (with  all  Deference  to  Superior  Judgments)  in  my 
humble  Opinion,  very  Sufficient  to  warrant  the  appointment 
of  a  Commissary  to  proceed  in  a  Judicial  manner,  with  the 
Leave  &  Countenance  of  a  Governor."^  From  this,  the  most 
careful  and  thorough  of  the  answers  returned  to  the  queries,  it 
would  seem  that  the  Bishop  of  London  would  be  seriously 
hampered  in  any  authority  that  he  might  choose  to  exercise 
over  ecclesiastical  concerns  in  the  colonies. 

'  After  weighing  the  opinions  which  he  received,  Gibson  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  powers  embodied  in  the  instructions 
to  the  royal  governors,  under  which  Compton,  Robinson,  and  he 
himself  had  hitherto  exercised  their  authority,  were  insufficient.^ 
He  accordingly  appealed  to  the  crown  to  establish  his  jurisdic- 
tion on  a  more  definite  basis,  and  even  refused  to  send  out  any 
more  commissaries  until  an  understanding  should  be  reached. 
The  reason  which  he  assigned  for  his  doubts  and  for  his  subse- 
quent action  was  the  fact  that  the  colonies  lay  beyond  the 
proper  limits  of  his  diocese,  and  that  the  only  basis  of  his  jurisdic- 
tion there  was  the  rather  transitory  authorization  from  the  crown 
embodied  in  the  commissions  to  various  governors.  He  said 
that  he  had  made  a  vain  search  for  the  order  supposed  to  have 
been  issued  to  Compton,  but  had  failed  to  find  it  either  in  the 

1  Gordon  to  Gibson,  November  3,  1725,  Fidhain  MSS. 

2  For  further  comments  on  the  order  in  council  supposed  to  have  been 
issued  in  Compton's  time,  see  Wilberforce,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  107; 
Abbey,  English  Church  and  Bishops,  i.  82  ;  McConnell,  American  Episcopal 
Church,  175,  who  erroneously  cites  Abbey,  to  the  effect  that  the  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London  over  the  colonies  was  confirmed  by  an 
order  in  council  in  1703. 

I 

/ 


56  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

Council  books  or  in  the  Council  Office ;  that,  moreover,  able 
lawyers  whom  he  had  consulted  had  informed  him  that,  even 
if  such  an  order  existed,  "  it  would  not  warrant  the  Bishop  to 
grant  Commissions  to  others,  unless  he  himself  should  be  first 
Empowered  so  to  do  by  a  Commission  from  the  king  under  the 
great  seal ;  the  Plantations  being  not  a  part  of  any  Diocese  but 
remaining  under  the  sole  and  immediate  Jurisdiction  of  the 
King;  and  that  Jurisdiction  not  to  be  legally  delegated  but 
under  the  Great  Seal."  ^ 

In  a  "  Humble  Representation  "  to  the  king  in  council,  Gibson 
indicated  a  further  reason  which  influenced  him  to  the  step  he 
then  took.  It  was,  in  effect,  that,  under  existing  conditions,  the 
commissaries  appointed  by  his  predecessors  were  in  a  very 
anomalous  position.  Although  in  general  strictly  refraining 
from  any  interference  with  collations,  wills,  or  benefices,^  they 
had  been  absolutely  prevented  from  holding  any  courts  at  all, 
or  indeed  from  proceeding  in  any  judicial  manner  whatever. 
As  an  instance  of  the  extent  to  which  the  matter  had  been 
carried,  he  cited  the  case  of  Governor  Lowther,  late  of  the 
Barbadoes,  who  procured  an  "Act  of  Assembly  and  Council," 
prohibiting  the  issuance  of  any  kind  of  ecclesiastical  citation  or 
process,  under  penalty  of  a  fine  of  £,^0^.  Owing  to  this  and 
other  restraints,  he  argued,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  had  become  merely  nominal,  and  his  commissaries  were 
unable  to  proceed  judicially  against  any  sort  of  immoralities  or 
irregularities.  In  addition  to  this,  a  clause  inserted  in  many  of 
the  governor's  instructions  providing  that  "  if  any  person  already 
preferr'd  to  a  Benefice  shall  appear  to  you  to  give  scandal, 
either  by  his  Doctrine  or  Manners  you  are  to  use  the  best 
means  for  the  Removal  of  him,"  seemed  to  give  to  the  governor 
what  little  power  the  bishop  possessed  even  over  the  clergy. 
In  view  of  all  these  circumstances,  Gibson  deemed  it  advisable 
to  secure  a  more  sufficient  basis  for  his  power,  and,  as  has  been 
said,  declined  to  exercise  any  further  jurisdiction  or  to  appoint 

^London  Weekly  Miscellany  (edited  by  Richard  Hooker,  London,  1736- 
1738),  i.  81. 

2  There  had  been  one  or  two  instances  of  such  interference  by  Blair  in 
Virginia  and  by  Bray  in  Maryland  (see  above,  pp.  40,  43) . 


THE  ROYAL   COMMISSION. 


57 


any  more  commissaries  until  an  understanding  as  to  the  precise 
limits  of  his  authority  could  be  reached.^ 

"  Convinced  that  any  attempt  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the 
whole  body  of  the  laity  would  be  resisted,  or  would  at  least 
occasion  great  dissatisfaction,  he  suggested  to  the  king  and 
council,  that  in  case  they  saw  fit  to  grant  him  a  commision 
under  the  great  seal,  they  should  make  it  extend  only  to  the 
Clergy,  and  to  such  other  Persons  and  Matters  as  concern'd 
the  Repair  of  Churches,  and  the  decent  Performance  of  Divine 
Service  therein."  ^  His  petition  was  referred  to  the  attorney 
and  solicitor  generals,  who  reported  "  that  the  authority  by 
which  the  Bishops  of  London  had  acted  in  the  Plantations  was 
insufficient,"  and  that  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  America  "  did 
belong  neither  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  nor  to  any  Bishop  in 
England  ;  but  was  solely  in  the  Crown  by  virtue  of  the  Suprem- 
acy, and  that  the  most  proper  way  of  granting  to  any  person 
the  exercise  of  such  jurisdiction,  was  by  Patent  under  the 
v>  Broad  Seal."  In  pursuance  of  this  advice,  such  a  patent  was 
granted  to  Gibson,  but,  according  to  Sherlock^  and  other  con- 
temporaries, only  to  Gibson  personally  and  not  to  his  succes- 
sors ;  hence  the  grant  expired  with  his  death,  and  the  jurisdiction 
reverted  to  the  crown.* 
=    The  instrument,  in  its  final  form,  was  dated  April  29,  1728.^ 

1 "  The  Humble  Representation  of  Edmund,  Bishop  of  London,  to  the 
King's  most  Excellent  Majesty  in  Council  "  {Fulham  AISS.) . 

^  Londo7i  Weekly  Miscellany,  i.  83-86. 

^See  his  Report,  1759,  JVew  York  Documents,  vii.  363. 

*  Brodhead,  New  York,  ii.  456-457,  note  3.  Other  references  are:  Wilber- 
force,  Protestant  Episcopal  Cluirch,  108;  Whitney,  South  Carolina,  ii.  413; 
Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collectio7is,  i.  137,  159;  Forsyth, 
Cases  and  Opinions,  45  ;  New  York  Documents,  vii.  363  flf. ;  Perry,  American 
Episcopal  Church,  i.  154-155. 

^  South  Carolina  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  225  ;  New  Jersey  Archives, 
V.  126-128.  The  text  of  this  commission  may  be  found  in  New  York  Docu- 
ments, V.  849-854  (reprinted  below,  Appendix  A,  No.  v.).  There  were  two 
patents.  The  first,  issued  by  George  I.,  was  superseded  by  that  of  his  successor, 
George  l\.  The  former  seems  (although  the  writer  has  been  unable  to  find  a 
copy  of  it)  to  have  been  more  full  than  the  one  under  which  Gibson  and  his 
commissaries  exercised  their  powers.  Cf.  London  Weekly  Miscellany,  i.  86 : 
"  The   Commission   above   mentioned  expired  upon  the  Death   of  his  late 


58  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

Its  full  title  is,  "  A  Royal  Commission  for  exercising  Spiritual 
and  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the  American  Plantations." 
In  the  preamble  the  King,  George  II.,  grants  to  the  Bishop  of 
London  "  full  power  and  authority,"  by  himself  or  by  his  "  suf- 
ficient commissary  or  commissaries,"  to  be  by  him  "  substituted 
and  named  to  exercise  Spiritual  and  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 
in  the  special  causes  and  matters  hereinafter  expressed  and 
specified,  within  our  several  Colonies,  Plantations,  and  other  do- 
minions in  America,  according  to  the  laws  and  canons  of  the 
Church  of  England,  in  England  lawfully  received  and  sanctioned." 
Four  causes  are  then  specified  in  which  the  Bishop  is  to  have 
jurisdiction:  (i)  the  visitation  of  all  the  churches  in  which 
the  rites  and  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  are  used ; 
(2)  the  citation  of  all  rectors,  curates,  and  incumbents,  as  well 
as  of  all  priests  and  deacons  in  Church  of  England  orders, 
and  the  right  to  inquire,  by  witnesses  duly  sworn,  into  their 
morals  and  conduct,  with  power  to  administer  oaths  in  the 
ecclesiastical  courts,  and  to  correct  and  punish  any  of  these 
clergy  by  suspension,  excommunication,  or  like  measure  ;  (3)  the 
appointment  of  commissaries,  removable  at  pleasure,  for  the 
exercise  of  this  jurisdiction;  (4)  the  right  of  appeal,  before  cer- 
tain of  the  Privy  Council  enumerated  in  the  commission,  for  all 
those  who  should  feel  themselves  wronged  by  any  decision  of 
the  local  ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  commissaries. 

Bishop  Sherlock,  in  his  report  on  the  church  in  the  colonies 
presented  to  the  king  in  council,  February  19,  1759,^  discusses 
this  part  of  his  predecessor's  commission  in  some  detail.  He  is 
inclined  to  regard  the  powers  conferred  by  it  as  very  vague  and. 

Majesty ;  and  before  a  new  one  could  pass  the  Great  Seal,  it  was  represented 
to  the  Bishop,  That  insomuch  as  the  Laws  of  the  Several  Governments  have 
already  provided  for  the  Repair  of  Churches,  and  the  furnishing  of  such  things 
as  are  necessary  for  the  decent  Performance  of  Divine  Service ;  the  taking  that 
care  out  of  the  Hands  of  the  Vestries,  who  are  chiefly  interested  with  it,  would 
probably  give  Uneasiness,  and  be  the  Occasion  of  leaving  the  Fabricks  and 
Furniture  of  Churches  not  so  well  taken  Care  of  as  they  are  at  present :  Where- 
upon the  Bishop,  desiring  as  much  as  possible  to  avoid  the  giving  Offense,  and 
the  raising  any  uneasiness,  was  Content  that  the  New  Commission  should  be 
confined  to  a  Jurisdiction  of  the  Clergy  alone  :  and  so  it  stands." 
1  New  York  Documents,  vii.  363-364. 


SHERLOCK'S   COMMENTS  ON  THE  COMMISSION        59 

in  many  respects,  inadequate.  Let  us  follow  him  as  he  takes 
up  the  four  points  one  by  one.  He  shows  (i)  that,  although 
the  bishop,  or  his  representative,  has  authority  to  visit  all  the 
churches,  he  has  no  power  whatever  over  church  wardens  or 
vestries ;  (2)  that,  although  he  has  the  right  to  summon  and  dis- 
cipline all  regularly-ordained  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, he  has  not  the  least  control  over  those  making  false 
pretences  to  such  profession  ;  (3)  that  although  he  is  empowered 
to  examine  the  conduct  of  the  clergy  under  oath,  he  has  no 
authority  to  summon  lay  witnesses,  however  necessary  such  a 
step  may  be  to  the  purposes  of  the  trial ;  (4)  that,  although  he 
may  appoint  commissaries,  he  has  no  control  over  their  judg- 
ments, since  an  appeal  lies,  not  to  him,  but  to  the  Pri\y  Council. 
His  conclusion  is  that  the  bishop's  only  resource  was  a  power 
,of  absolute  removal.  After  pointing  out  how  defective  the 
Bishop  of  London's  jurisdiction  was  under  this  grant,  and  how 
futile  it  must  ever  be  to  invest  a  bishop  with  a  charge  beyond  the 
seas  which  could  not  be  duly  executed  except  in  person.  Dr.  Sher- 
lock goes  on  to  discuss  his  favorite  remedy  —  an  American 
bishop.  The  reasons  which  he  adduces  in  favor  of  his  plan, 
and  the  difficulties  he  urges  against  it,  will  be  considered 
later ;  for  they  are  brought  forward  by  him  and  by  others  again 
and  again  during  the  century. 

The  limitations  in  the  grant  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
may  have  been  as  formidable  as  Sherlock  maintains  ;  but  it 
must  be  remembered  that  this  commentator  was  hardly  an  un- 
biassed critic,  and  also  that,  Hke  most  written  instruments,  the 
commission  was  susceptible,  under  a  liberal  interpretation,  of 
far-reaching  implied  powers.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however, 
owing  to  the  position  in  which  the  commissaries  found  them- 
selves in  the  colonies,  they  usually  confined  their  activities  to 
visitation,  exhortation,  supervision,  and  administration,  making 
very  few  attempts  to  exercise  a  punitive  jurisdiction,  or  to  set 
-up  courts.  Indeed,  outside  of  Virginia,  the  only  instance  known 
in  which  a  commissary  subjected  a  priest  to  formal  trial  and 
sentence  is  the  case  of  Commissary  Garden  of  South  Carolina 
against  Reverend  George  Whitefield.^ 

^  See  below,  p.  80  ff. 


6o  GIBSOAT  TO  SHERLOCK. 

Whatever  flaws  Sherlock  may  have  picked  in  the  royal  grant 
of  1728,  and  however  eloquently  he  may  have  argued  in  favor 
of  an  American  episcopate  as  the  only  possible  system  by  which 
the  Church  of  England  in  America  could  be  ruled,  Gibson  found 
his  commission,  for  the  time  being  at  least,  a  basis  quite  ade- 
quate for  his  purposes ;  and  that  the  English  government  so  re- 
garded the  patent  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  at  once  took 
steps  to  enforce  its  provisions.  To  this  end,  Newcastle  ordered 
the  following  clause  to  be  inserted  in  each  succeeding  governor's 
instructions :  ^  — 

"  Having  been  graciously  pleased  to  grant  unto  the  Right 
Reverend  Father  in  God  Edmund  Lord  Bishop  of  London  a 
Commission  under  our  Great  Seal  of  Great  Britain  whereby  he 
is  empowered  to  exercise  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  by  himself 
or  by  such  Commissaries  as  he  shall  appoint  in  our  several 
Plantations  in  America.  It  is  Our  Will  and  Pleasure  that  you 
give  all  countenance  and  due  encouragement  to  the  said  Bishop 
of  London  or  his  Commissaries  in  the  legal  exercise  of  such 
Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Province 
under  your  government  and  to  the  tenor  of  the  said  Commission 
a  Copy  whereof  is  hereunto  annexed  and  that  you  do  cause  the 
said  Commission  to  be  forthwith  registered  in  the  public  records 
of  that  our  Province."  ^ 

Moreover,  in  another  article  of  all  subsequent  instruc- 
tions was  inserted  a  provision  from  a  draft  prepared  by  an 
order  in  council  of  May  3,  1727,  in  accordance  with  a  peti- 
tion from  Bishop  Gibson  'that  all  laws  against  blasphemy, 
adultery,    drunkenness,    swearing,    etc.,    be    vigorously    put  in 

^  See  Newcastle's  communication  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  January  21,  1729- 
1730,  and  the  Board's  reputed  draft  of  instructions,  April  20,  1730,  in  South 
Carolina  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  227.  See  also  an  address  to  the 
king  on  this  subject  from  the  Board  of  Trade,  March  17,  1 729-1 730,  New 
Jersey  Archives,  v.  264-265. 

"  The  first  instructions  in  which  the  clause  seems  to  have  been  embodied 
were  those  to  Governor  George  Burrington  of  North  Carolina,  issued  De- 
cember 14,  1730.  The  other  clauses  on  which  the  authority  of  Compton  and 
his  successors  rested  (quoted  above,  pp.  26,  29,  30)  were  also  inserted  in  these 
instructions,  and  continued  to  be  reinserted  in  all  the  later  commissions.  See 
North  Carolina  Records,  iii.  90-118  ;  New  Jersey  Archives,  v.  264-265. 


GIBSON'S  METHODUS  PROCEDENDI.  6l 

force."  ^  This  is  only  one  of  many  instances  which  prove, 
not  only  that  the  bishop  manifested  a  warm  paternal  interest 
in  the  colonies,  but  also  that  his  right  to  such  an  interest  was 
well  recognized  by  the  authorities  of  the  English  government. 
Having  set  his  colonial  jurisdiction  upon  a  secure  legal  basis, 
Gibson  next  formulated  a  plan  for  regulating  the  legal  pro- 
cedure of  his  commissaries  in  any  trials  of  immoral  or  irregular 
clergymen  which  they  might  be  called  upon  to  undertake.  The 
rules  which  he  drew  up  are  embodied  in  a  pamphlet  which  he 
sent  to  each  of  his  commissaries.^  He  begins  by  notifying  the 
commissary  in  question  of  his  appointment,  and  then  enumerates 
a  list  of  directions  which  are  to  guide  him  in  the  performance  of 
his  functions.  These  duties  are  distinctly  grouped  under  several 
heads.  In  the  first  place,  he  is  to  proceed  by  private  admonition 
against  clergymen  guilty  of  irregularity  or  negligence  in  the 
performance  of  their  duties,  and,  in  the  case  of  graver  crimes, 
by  public  or  even  judicial  measures;  in  the  latter  event,  he  is  to 
use  a  short  and  summary  process  according  to  the  directions 
laid  down  in  the  Methodus  Procedendi,  and  is  always  to  act  with 
the  assistance  of  at  least  two  clergymen  chosen  by  himself ; 
except  in  case  of  very  serious  crimes  he  is  to  confer  the  sentence 
of  suspension  ab  officio  et  beneficio  rather  than  of  deprivation,  in 
'  order  to  give  the  guilty  person  time  to  repent.  Secondly,  he  is 
to  hold  a  visitation  every  year,  and  is  to  send  an  account  of  it  to 
the  Bishop  of  London ;  he  is  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  par- 
sonages and  glebes,  and  to  find  out  if  there  be  any  clergymen 
officiating  without  a  testimonial  from  the  bishop.  In  the  third 
place,  he  is  to  inform  the  bishop  what  steps  have  been  or  are  to 
be  taken  to  obtain  an  act  of  assembly  for  presentment  of  crimes 
and  vices  to  be  made  to  the  temporal  courts  twice  every  year. 
Next,  he  is  to  give  notice  to  his  diocesan  of  any  hardships  or 

"^  North  Carolina  Records,  iii.  111-112;  South  Carolina  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  i.  225  ;  London  Weekly  Miscellany,  i.  83-86  (an  account  of  the 
clause,  with  text). 

-There  is  a  copy  in  the  Fulham  library.  It  is  a  quarto  of  sixteen  pages, 
entitled  Methodus  Procedendi  co?ttra  Clericos  Irregidares  in  Plantationibics 
America7iis.  It  has  no  date  or  place  of  publication,  but  it  was  issued  by 
Gibson,  September  28,  1728.     It  is  reprinted  below.  Appendix  A,  No.  vi. 


62  GIBSON-  TO  SHERLOCK. 

oppressions  to  which  he  finds  the  clergy  exposed  in  relation  to 
the  rights  to  which  they  are  entitled  by  the  laws  and  constitu- 
tions of  the  government.  Finally,  he  is  directed  "  to  take  all 
proper  opportunities  to  recommend  to  the  clergy  a  loyal  and 
dutiful  Behaviour  towards  the  present  Government,  as  vested  in 
his  Majesty  King  George,  and  established  in  the  Illustrious 
House  of  Hanover,  and  that  they  pay  all  due  Submission  and 
Respect  to  the  Governor  sent,  as  well  in  regard  to  his  Com- 
mission and  Character,  as  to  engage  his  Favour  and  Protection 
to  the  Church  and  Clergy."  It  was  left  to  the  judgment  and 
prudence  of  the  commissary  to  apply  these  rules  in  particular 
cases. 

So  much  for  the  duties  of  the  commissary  in  general.  A  con- 
sideration of  the  particular  method  to  be  employed  in  proceed- 
ing against  irregular  clergymen  will  now  be  taken  up. 

The  special  irregularities  for  which  a  clergyman  might  be 
brought  to  account  were  as  follows :  officiating  without  a 
license ;  marrying  without  banns  or  license ;  neglect  in  cate- 
chising, or  the  omission  of  any  other  church  duty ;  a  refusal  to 
baptize  or  to  bury ;  and  immoralities  of  various  kinds,  such  as 
incontinence,  profanity,  intemperance,  and  the  like.  In  each 
case  the  trial  was  to  be  held  in  a  church,  either  that  of  the 
commissary  or  that  of  the  person  accused.  The  prosecution 
was  to  be  conducted  either  by  a  promoter  appointed  by  the 
commissary  or  by  a  voluntary  accuser.  In  the  latter  case  the 
accuser  was  to  deposit  a  sum  of  twenty  pounds,  by  way  of 
security  for  the  costs  of  the  trial  should  he  fail  to  prove  his 
accusation.  The  process  was  to  be  summary,  beginning  with 
a  citation  under  the  seal  of  the  commissary,  and  this  citation 
was  to  be  served  on  the  party  personally  if  possible,  if  not  by 
a  process  viis  et  modis,  to  be  hung  on  the  door  of  his  church 
or  of  his  dwelling-house.  If  he  did  not  appear,  he  should  be 
called  contumacious,  and  the  proceedings  should  go  on  without 
him ;  that  is,  the  witnesses  should  be  admitted,  sworn,  and 
examined,  their  depositions  published,  and  a  day  assigned  for 
the  sentence.  If  the  defendant  appeared  and  confessed,  he 
should  be  sentenced  according  to  the  character  of  the  offence, 
either  by  admonition,  suspension,  or   deprivation,  and  should 


THE   CIRCULAR    OF  1743.  63 

also  pay  the  costs.  If  he  denied  the  charge,  witnesses  should 
be  produced,  who,  after  being  duly  sworn,  should  be  examined 
before  a  notary  public,  or  other  person  skilful  in  taking  deposi- 
tions. Witnesses  properly  summoned  and  refusing  to  appear, 
or  appearing  and  refusing  to  undergo  examination,  might  be 
compelled  by  ecclesiastical  censure.  The  depositions  were  to 
be  taken  in  the  presence  of  the  commissary  (who  acted  as 
judge)  and  his  assessors.  Forty-eight  hours  were  then  granted 
the  defendant  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  the  witnesses  and 
to  arrange  whatever  questions  he  might  see  fit  to  ask  them. 
Beyond  that,  the  defendant,  by  his  proctor  or  advocate,  might 
put  in  a  defensive  plea.  If  the  proof  advanced  by  the  prosecu- 
tion were  legally  insufficient  to  convict,  the  defendant  was  to  be 
dismissed  with  his  costs.  He  was  allowed  to  appeal,  any  time 
within  fifteen  days,  to  the  judges  appointed  by  the  king's  com- 
mission. The  record  of  the  trial  was  to  be  preserved  in  a  book 
kept  by  the  registrar.^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  process  was  strictly  ecclesiastical 
in  almost  every  respect.  The  only  secular  element  was  the 
question  of  the  costs,  to  recover  which  a  civil  suit  might  be 
required.  Whether  such  a  suit  could  ever  have  been  successful 
it  WQ'uld  be  hard  to  say.  All  the  penalties  in  the  hands 
of  the  commissary,  even  those  for  forcing  the  attendance 
of  witnesses,  were  strictly  ecclesiastical.  Processes  according 
to  the  procedure  laid  down  in  the  MetJiodiis  were  tried  to  some 
extent  in  South  Carohna  and  Virginia.  Whether  or  not  they  were 
used  elsewhere  is  extremely  uncertain ;  probably  they  were  not. 

During  Gibson's  occupancy  of  the  see  of  London,  he  seems 
to  have  become  aware  of  the  evil  of  licensing  promiscuous 
applicants  for  churches  in  the  American  plantations.  In  order 
to  avert  the  danger,  he  issued  the  following  proclamation, 
July  13,  1743:  — 

"  There  having  been  of  late,  a  greater  number  of  Persons 
than    usual  who    have   come   from   the    Plantations   for    Holy 

^  The  various  forms  of  citations,  articles,  sentences,  appeals,  etc.,  in  both 
Latin  and  English,  may  be  found  below  in  Appendix  A,  No.  vi.,  where  the 
whole  pamphlet  is  given. 


64  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

Orders ;  I  find  it  convenient  to  have  it  understood,  that  no 
Person  may  come  over  for  that  Purpose  with  any  Hope  of 
Success,  unless  he  bring  with  him, 

"  1°  A  Testimony  and  Recommendation  from  the  Commissary 
for  that  Government,  in  which  his  usual  residence  has  been. 

"  2°  An  Account,  from  the  Same  Hand,  of  the  Truth  of  his 
Title,  and  if  it  be  for  an  Assistant,  what  Occasion  the  Incum- 
bent has  to  desire  one,  and  whether  the  Salary  which  he  pro- 
poses to  allow  be  sufficient  with  regard  to  the  value  of  the 
Living,  and  the  Duty  to  be  performed. 

"  The  several  Commissaries  are  hereby  requested,  to  take  the 
proper  Methods  of  making  these  Things  known,  in  the  respec- 
tive Governments  to  which  they  belong. 

"  Edm'  London."^ 

Having  made  such  earnest  efforts  to  establish  his  colonial 
jurisdiction  on  a  definite  legal  basis,  and  to  provide  for  the  due 
exercise  of  his  authority,  personally  and  through  his  commis- 
sarial  representatives,  Bishop  Gibson  naturally  identified  himself 
closely  with  the  concerns  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
various  colonies. 

In  Massachusetts  he  met  with  considerable  opposition,  —  in 
one  case,  at  least,  from  his  own  people.  The  congregation  of 
King's  Chapel,  composed  chiefly  of  Tories,  had  but  a  cold 
welcome  for  a  diocesan  who  was  a  Hanoverian  Whig;  they 
sent  him  no  letter  of  congratulation,  and  sought  to  oppose  the 
exercise  of  powers  which  they  had  accepted  from  previous 
bishops.^  Governor  Dummer,  on  the  contrary,  although  an 
Independent,  seems  to  have  been  more  favorably  disposed 
toward  the  new  bishop.  He  wrote,  April  29,  1724:  "I  have 
the  honour  of  V  Lordship's  Letter  of  the  zcf"  Novemb"",  which 
I  received  not  till  the  Middle  of  April.  I  heartily  Congratulate 
Your  Lordship  upon  y"^  Promotion  to  the  See  of  London,  —  To 
which  your  eminent  piety  and  Learning,  Moderation  and  firm 
Attachment  to  his  Majesty's  Interest  and  Government  and  the 

^  A  printed  circular  apparently  distributed  among  the  colonies  (original  in 
Fulham  MSS.). 

2  Foote,  Annals  of  King'' s  Chapel,  i.  321. 


THE   CHURCH  I  AT  MASSACHUSETTS.  65 

protestant  Succession  do  So  Justly  Entitle  You ;  and  I  do 
Assure  Your  Lordship  that  this  Government  have  a  Good  part 
of  the  Gen"  Satisfaction  in  Your  Lords^®  Translation  to  a  place 
of  that  Important  Trust  in  the  Church  of  England.  I  shall 
always  Use  my  best  endeavours  to  answer  Your  Lordships 
Desire  and  Expectation  by  Countenancing  and  Encouraging 
the  Church  and  the  Ministers  thereof  in  their  endeavours  to 
promote  Piety,  Loyalty,  and  good  manners.  So  long  as  I  have 
the  Hon^  to  Serve  his  Majesty  in  the  Chief  Command  over  this 
province."  ^ 

Soon  after  his  accession.  Bishop  Gibson,  following  his  cus- 
tomary procedure  with  regard  to  the  several  colonies,  sent  a 
set  a  queries  concerning  ecclesiastical  conditions  to  all  the 
Church  of  England  clergymen  in  Massachusetts.^  From  their 
answers  it  appears  that  there  were  no  parishes  in  the  province, 
that  the  governor  had  no  power  of  induction,  that  clergymen 
took  possession  of  their  livings  and  held  them  solely  by  virtue 
of  the  license  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  that  ministers  were 
supported  partly  by  voluntary  contributions  from  the  congrega- 
tions and  partly  by  stipends  from  the  Society  for  Propagat- 
ing the  Gospel.^  Since  there  was  as  yet  no  commissary  in 
New  England,  the  Reverend  Samuel  Myles,  rector  of  King's 
Chapel,  replied  for  the  district.  He  reported  that  there  had 
never  been  any  visitation  or  convention  there.  In  answer  to 
the  query,  "  What  public  Acts  of  Assembly  have  been  made  & 
confirmed,  relating  to  the  Church  or  Clergy  within  that  Gov* .? " 
he  said  :  "  There  are  Several  laws  for  the  Establishing  of  Inde- 
pendants,  &  Settling  Orthodox  Ministers  chosen  by  the  people. 
The  Church  of  England  only  indulged,  as  the  Anabaptists  & 
Quakers  for  never  in  any  of  the  Laws  is  the  case  supposed 
that  the  clergy  of  the  Chh  of  Engl'\  should  be  here  Supported." 
"  It  would  tend  very  much  to  the  advantage  of  the  Church  & 
comfort  of  the  Clergy,"  he  suggests  in  answer  to  another  query, 

1  Ibid.  292-293,  from  Massachusetts  Archives,  li.  403.  Probably  the 
bishop's  letter,  to  which  this  is  a  reply,  was  destroyed  in  the  fire  which 
burned  the  Court  House,  December  9,  1747  (cf.  Foote,  as  above). 

"^  See  above,  pp.  52-53. 

^  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts)  149-150. 

5 


66  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

"  if  the  members  of  the  Chh  were  freed  from  any  compulsion 
to  pay  to  the  independant  ministers,  as  they  are  forced  to  do 
in  many  places  Particularly  in  Bristol  where  the  Church  people 
have  been  imprisoned  for  not  paying  their  rates  towards  the 
maintenance  of  W.  Cotton  a  Dissenting  Minister  of  that 
Town."^  Such  was  the  condition  of  the  church  and  the  church 
people  whose  interests  Gibson  was  to  protect  and  further  in 
New  England. 

The  first  case  in  which  his  hand  is  distinctly  seen  is  the 
celebrated  Checkley  controversy.^  This  trouble  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  John  Checkley  was  a  violent  and  unreasoning  partisan 
of  the  Church  of  England  among  people  who  were  bitterly 
hostile  to  the  claims  he  advanced  in  her  behalf.  The  conflict 
began  in  1723,  when  he  published  in  London  a  reprint  of 
Leslie's  Short  and  Easy  Method  %vith  Deists,  to  which  he 
added  a  "Discourse  concerning  Episcopacy  in  Defense  of 
Christianity  and  the  Church  of  England."  In  this  work,  pass- 
ing beyond  the  proper  limits  of  his  argument,  he  rudely  attacked 
the  clergy  and  people  of  New  England.  For  this  he  was  tried 
at  Boston  in  1724,  and  was  fined.  Frequent  appeals  were  made 
to  Gibson  for  advice  and  support;  but  the  bishop  showed  his 
tact  and  moderation  by  standing  aloof  as  far  as  possible  from 
the  actual  controversy,  intervening  only  to  exhort  both  parties 
to  peace  and  unity.  Nevertheless,  his  utterances  show  that,  in 
quarters  to  which  his  authority  extended,  he  would  see  to  it 
that  no  essential  principle  of  the  Church  of  England  was  in- 
fringed upon.^    His  efforts  toward  conciliation  seem  to  have  been 

^  Myles  to  Gibson,  June  i,  1724,  Perry,  ibid.  153-154. 

2  For  good  accounts  of  this  controversy  based  on  the  sources,  with  liberal 
excerpts  from  them,  see  Foote,  Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  i.  ch.  viii.,  Slafter's 
Checkley  in  "Prince  Society  Publications,"  and  Perry,  American  Episcopal 
Chtirch,  i.  ch.  xv.  Some  of  the  documents  are  printed  in  Perry,  Historical 
Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts), /<zi-j'/w. 

^  See  Gibson  to  Myles,  September  3,  1724,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections^ 
iii.  (Massachusetts)  166-167;  Foote,  Annals  of  King'^s  Chapel,  i.  331-332; 
Douglass,  Summary,  i.  228-229.  The  copy  in  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Proceedings,  1865,  p.  226,  is  there  stated  to  have  been  written  to  the 
Honorable  Thomas  Graves  of  Charlestown  ;  but  a  more  authentic  copy  of  it, 
addressed  "  To  y"^  Rev*  M"^  Miles,  at  Boston,  New  England,"  may  be  found  in 


THE  NEW  ENGLAND   SYNOD.  6/ 

appreciated.  For  example,  December  17,  1724,  the  Reverend 
David  Mossom,  the  clergyman  at  Marblehead,  wrote  to  thank 
him  for  his  "  pathetick  exhortations  and  authoritative  injunc- 
tions to  Peace  and  amity."  Yet  Mossom  continues  in  a  tone 
of  sadness :  "  Such  is  the  flaming  zeal  of  this  M";  Checkley  and 
the  party  which  abets  him,  that,  be  your  Lorship's  decisions 
what  they  will,  except  they  agree  with  their  ways  of  thinking, 
they  put  'em  behind  'em  and  take  no  notice  of  them  ;  and  .  .  . 
we  .  .  .  the  poor  inferior  Clergy  .  .  .  are  the  Butts  of  their 
vehement  and  ungoverned  heat."  ^  Checkley  went  to  England 
in  1727,  intending  to  take  orders  and  settle  in  Marblehead;  but 

'  Gibson  was  wise  and  politic  enough  to  refuse  to  ordain  a  man 
who,  whatever  the  merits  of  the  question  he  defended,  had  ren- 
dered himself  so  obnoxious  to  the  people  of  Massachusetts. 
Subsequently  he  secured  ordination  from  the  Bishop  of 
Exeter  and  went  to  Rhode  Island,  where  he  passed  the  rest 
of  his  life. 

The  Checkley  controversy  was  still  in  progress  when  a  new 
question  arose  in  which  Gibson  was  called  upon  to  play  a  lead- 
ing part.  On  May  27,  1725,  a  convention  of  New  England 
ministers  petitioned  the  governor,  council,  and  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  Massachusetts  for  permission  to  hold  a  synod 
for  the  purpose  of  correcting  certain  abuses  which  had  crept 
into  the  church.  On  June  3,  the  council  voted  to  grant  this 
request;  but  on  the  eleventh  the  House  of  Representatives 
voted  to  hold  the  matter  over  until  the  next  session  for  further 
consideration.     In  this  decision  of  the  lower  house,  the  governor 

•  and  council  finally  concurred.^  On  June  19,  the  very  day  on 
which  the  authorities  voted  to  postpone  the  matter,  Samuel  Myles 
and  Timothy  Cutler,  two  Church  of  England  clergymen  of  Boston,^ 
presented  a  counter  petition  to  the  assembly,  in  which  they  pro- 
tested against  the  synod'for  reasons  which  they  enumerated  as  f  ol- 

the  Proceedings  of  the  same  society  for  1866-1867,  p.  342  (see  Foote,  Annals 
of  King's  Chapel,  i.  331,  note  2). 

^  Foote,  Ajttials  of  King''s  Chapel,  i.  333  ;  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii. 
(Massachusetts)  169. 

'^Chalmers,  Opinions,  i.  4-14. 

*  Rectors  of  King's  Chapel  and  Christ  Church  respectively. 


68  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

lows  :  first,  because  it  purposed  to  concern  itself  with  all  churches, 
among  them  the  Church  of  England,  with  which  it  had  no  right  to 
meddle ;  secondly,  because  various  utterances  in  the  petition  — 
as,  for  example,  one  referring  the  council  to  a  time  when  there 
was  no  Church  of  England  in  the  province  —  indicated  that 
the  synod  would  probably  be  prejudiced  against  that  church ; 
thirdly,  because  the  prime  movers  in  the  affair  had  not  con- 
sulted the  Episcopal  ministers,  who  were,  equally  with  all  other 
denominations,  concerned  in  the  moral  and  religious  life  of  the 
colony ;  in  the  fourth  place,  because  the  ministers  of  this  body 
felt  that  they  should  be  represented  in  the  synod,  and  yet 
thought  it  improper,  "it  being  without  the  knowledge  of  their 
R*  Rev*^  Diocesan  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London."  Their  final 
reason  was  stated  as  follows :  "  Whereas  by  Royal  Authority 
the  Colonies  in  America  are  annex'd  to  the  Diocese  of  London, 
&  inasmuch  as  nothing  can  be  transacted  in  ecclesiastical 
matters  without  the  cognizance  of  the  Bishop,  We  are  humbly 
of  opinion  that  it  will  neither  be  dutiful  to  his  most  sacred 
Majesty  King  George  nor  consistent  with  the  rights  of  our 
R*  Rev**  Diocesan  to  encourage  or  call  the  said  Synod  until 
the  pleasure  of  His  Majesty  shall  be  known  therein."  This 
last  proposition  hinted  at  possibilities  in  the  way  of  an  exten- 
sion of  the  control  of  the  crown  and  the  Bishop  of  London  over 
the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  New  England  which  must  have  been 
most  startling  to  the  authorities  in  that  province.  This  consider- 
ation very  likely  impressed  the  council ;  for  it  voted,  June  22, 
that  the  petition  be  dismissed  as  containing  an  "indecent  re- 
flection "  on  the  proceedings  of  that  board,  and  "  groundless 
Insinuations."  The  next  day  the  lower  house  concurred  in 
this  vote.^ 

As  soon  as  the  matter  of  the  synod  came  to  the  ears  of  the 
Bishop  of  London,  he  despatched  a  letter  (August  17)  to  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle  discountenancing  the  project.  In  his  letter 
he  indicates  two  points  that  should  be  kept  in  mind  in  consider- 
ing the  advisability  of  allowing  such  an  assembly :  first,  what 
the  ministry  purpose  to  do ;   secondly,  whether,  if  the  right  to 

'^V^xr^,  Historical  Collections^  iii.  (Massachusetts)  1 70-1 71  ;  see  also  an 
extract  from  the  New  England  Courant,  July  10,  1725,  Ibid.  173. 


GIBSON  AND   THE  SYNOD.  69 

hold  synods  be  granted,  it  may  not  furnish  a  new  handle  of  com- 
plaint to  the  English  dissenters  in  England,  who  are  already 
clamoring  for  a  sitting  convention.^  In  a  second  letter,  written 
four  days  later,  he  takes  a  firmer  stand.  He  doubts  whether,  in 
view  of  the  Act  of  Union  between  England  and  Scotland,  the 
Independents  of  New  England  "  are  any  more  than  a  Federal 
Ministry  and  People."  He  admits  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  ^ 
"  extends  no  further  than  the  Realm  of  England,  the  Dominion 
of  Wales,  and  town  of  Berwick  on  Tweed,  and  therefore  left  the 
Crown  at  liberty  to  make  such  Worship  and  Discipline  as  the 
King  and  Queen  for  the  time  being  think  proper,  the  EstabHshed 
worship  and  discipline  of  the  territories ;  "  but  he  adds  that  "  by 
the  act  of  union,^  every  King  and  Queen  at  their  Coronation 
shall  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  to  maintain  and  preserve  invio- 
lably the  settlement  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Doctrine, 
Disciphne,  Worship,  and  Government  thereof  as  by  Law  estab- 
lished within  the  Kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland,  the  domin- 
ions of  Wales,  and  town  of  Berwick  upon  Tweed,  and  the 
territories  tJicj-eto  belonging^  By  this  clause,  he  affirms,  the 
establishment  of  the  Church  of  England  extends  to  the  Ameri- 
can plantations,  and  in  view  of  this  fact,  the  Independent  clergy 
are  simply  a  tolerated  body  as  in  England.  Such  being  the 
case,  the  Bishop  maintains  that  to  grant  them  permission  to 
hold  a  synod  would  be  to  do  an  injustice  to  both  the  established 
and  the  dissenting  clergy  at  home,  neither  of  whom  were  per- 
mitted by  law  to  hold  synods.* 

Gibson's  letters  appear  to  have  roused  the  English  authorities 
to  action  ;  for  on  September  24,  1725,  the  lords  justices  wrote  to 
him  informing  him  that  his  communications  to  the  Duke  of 
Newcastle  concerning  the  proposed  New  England  synod  had 
been  laid  before  them,  and  that  they  had  sent  them  to  the 
attorney  and  solicitor  generals  for  an  opinion.     Having  received 

^  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts)  179. 

213  &  14  Charles  II.,  c.  4. 

8  6  Anne,  c.  5. 

*  Chalmers,  Opinions,  i.  4-6;  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  (Massachu- 
setts) 180-181.  During  most  of  the  eighteenth  and  part  of  the  nineteenth 
centuries,  convocations  were  not  allowed  to  be  held. 


70  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

no  official  account  of  the  matter,  they  desire  his  Lordship  to  aid 
them  with  all  the  information  in  his  power.^ 

On  September  29  the  attorney  and  solicitor  generals  ren- 
dered an  opinion,  to  the  effect  that  there  was  no  such  regular 
establishment  of  a  national  or  provincial  church  in  New  Eng- 
land as  to  warrant  the  holding  of  a  synod  or  convention  ;  ^  that, 
should  the  clergy  presume  to  hold  such  an  assembly  without  the 
royal  Ucense,  the  king's  prerogative  would  be  sufficient  to  declare 
the  meeting  illegal,  even  though  it  had  been  sanctioned  by  the 
council  and  the  House  of  Representatives.^  Yet,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  crown  lawyers,  such  an  assembly,  being  only  a  voluntary 
society,  could  not  be  illegal  if  it  did  not  seek  to  pass  any  authori- 
tative acts.^ 

After  receiving  and  considering  these  decisions,  the  lords 
justices  sent  a  communication,  through  the  hands  of  Secretary 
Charles  de  la  Faye,  to  the  governor  of  Massachusetts,  in  which 
they  expressed  surprise  that  he,  contrary  to  his  instructions,  had 
neglected  to  inform  the  government  of  the  proposed  synod. 
Their  letter  reported  the  opinion  of  the  attorney  and  solicitor 
generals  that  such  an  assemblage  could  not  be  legally  held  with- 
out the  king's  consent,  and  directed  that,  if  it  were  already  in 
session,  it  should  be  dissolved,  but  not  by  any  formal  act,  lest 
by  that  step  the  authorities  might  seem  to  imply  that  such  a 
body  had  some  shadow  of  right  to  assemble.  This  ended  the 
matter  :    the  synod  never  met.^ 

In  the  long  struggle  which  New  England  Episcopalians 
carried  on  during  the  greater  part  of  the  first  half  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  in  their  efforts  to  secure  exemption  from  taxation 

^  Perry,  Historical  Collections.,  iii.  (Massachusetts)  186-187. 

2  Based  on  the  Massachusetts  Provincial  charter  of  October  7,  1691  :  see 
statute  3  William  &  Mary,  and  Acts  of  the  Massackiesetts  Assembly  to  1722. 

2  Chalmers,  Opinions.,  i.  12. 

^Ibid.  14. 

^  December  17,  1725,  the  Reverend  Benjamin  Colman,  a  prominent  Boston 
clergyman,  wrote  to  Bishop  Kennett  giving  an  account  of  the  discussion  relating 
to  the  calling  of  the  synod,  with  his  own  opinions  on  the  subject.  His  personal 
allusions  to  the  Bishop  of  London  are  interesting,  coming  as  they  do  from  a 
liberal  Congregationalist.  Any  one  interested  in  his  presentation  of  the  case 
may  find  it  completely  stated  in  Turell,  Life  of  Colman,  136-141. 


CHURCH  AFFAIRS  IN  MARYLAND.  y\ 

for  the  support  of  Congregational  ministers  and  churches,  they 
frequently  called  upon  their  diocesan  for  aid ;  but  although  he 
labored  earnestly  in  their  behalf,  they  were  unable  to  obtain  such 
a  settlement  as  they  desired  until  the  advent  of  Shirley  to  the 
governorship  of  Massachusetts.^  Shirley  proved  a  powerful 
ally.  He  had  not  been  long  in  the  province  when  he  secured 
the  passage  of  a  perpetual  act,  providing  that  the  taxes  levied 
on  Episcopalians  should  be  applied  to  the  support  and  mainte- 
nance of  their  own  religious  institutions,  and  not  to  those  of  the 
Congregationalists.^ 

In   1730    Bishop   Gibson   appointed    Roger    Price,  rector   of 
'  King's  Chapel,  to  be  his  commissary  for  New  England.     Indeed, 
it  seems  to  have  been  his  custom,  after  he  received  his  commis- 
sion, to  place  a  commissarial  representative  in  every  important 
colony  which  had  hitherto  been  without  one. 

Passing  southward  through  the  various  colonies,  we  find  little 
to  interest  us  until  we  come  to  Maryland.  The  situation  of  the 
Church  of  England  here  was  much  confused,  and  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that,  relatively  speaking,  its  membership  was  larger  in 
Maryland  than  in  any  other  province,  its  condition  was  very 
discouraging  to  those  who  had  its  best  interests  at  heart.  This 
unsatisfactory  state  of  affairs  was  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  the , 
respective  rights  of  the  Bishop  of  London  and  the  lord  proprie- 1 
tary  had  never  been  definitely  marked  off  from  each  other,  a  cir- 
cumstance which  gave  rise  to  frequent  misunderstandings  and 
conflicts.  In  theory  the  chief  control  of  the  ecclesiastical  affairs 
of  the  colony  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  of  London  and  his 

^  Shirley  was  ordered  by  his  instructions  to  "  give  all  Countenance  and  due 
Encouragement  to  the  .  .  .  Bishop  of  London  or  his  Commissaries  in  the 
legal  exercise  of  .  .  .  [their]  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction,  according  to  the  Laws 
of  the  Province  under  .  .  .  [his]  Government."  For  the  whole  extract  relat- 
ing to  ecclesiastical  matters,  see  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings , 
New  Series,  xiii.  221,  from  Massachtisetts  Archives,  xlix. 

■^  For  a  detailed  account  of  the  struggle  of  the  Episcopalians  to  secure  ex- 
emption from  religious  taxation  for  the  support  of  the  Congregational  church, 
see  Foote,  Annals  of  King^s  Chapel,  i.  passim,  and  Perry,  Historical  Collec- 
tions, iii.  (Massachusetts)  passim.  There  had  been  acts  previous  to  that  of 
1743  granting  exemption  to  Episcopalians  ;  but  they  had  been  only  temporary 
in  scope. 


72  G/BSOAT  TO  SHERLOCK. 

representatives ;  but  practically  the  proprietary  and  his  agent, 
the  governor,  had  a  not  inconsiderable  share  in  the  manage- 
ment of  these  affairs.  The  situation  was  all  the  more  compli- 
cated by  the  variable  attitude  of  the  latter  two  toward  the 
estabhshment.  At  one  moment  they  were  most  friendly,  at 
another  they  seemed  to  wish  to  do  everything  in  their  power 
not  only  to  check  its  progress  but  even  to  imperil  its  very  exist- 
ence. This  circumstance,  together  with  the  fact  that  most  of 
the  Maryland  clergy  refused  either  from  principle  or  from  self- 
interest  to  acknowledge  the  delegated  jurisdiction  of  the  com- 
missary, combined  to  render  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  extremely  uncertain.  His  power  was  still  further 
hampered  by  the  independent  position  of  the  fully-installed 
parish  priest.  Selected  by  the  proprietary,  licensed  by  the 
Bishop  of  London,  and  inducted  by  the  governor,  he  was  secure  i 
from  removal.  He  might  be  tried  by  the  commissary,  if  there 
happened  to  be  one ;  but  it  was  more  than  uncertain  that  what- 
ever sentence  the  latter  pronounced  against  him  could  be 
enforced ;  in  theory,  to  be  sure,  the  commissary  was,  by  the 
Methodus  Procedefidi,  issued  by  Gibson,  empowered  to  punish 
convicted  clergymen  by  suspension  or  by  deprivation  of  orders.^ 
An  instance  of  the  limitations  under  which  the  commissarial 
authority  suffered  at  this  time  is  seen  in  an  extract  of  a  letter 
from  one  Giles  Rainsford  to  a  friend,  April  lo,  1724,  Rainsford 
writes  that  he  had  expressed  a  desire  to  the  commissary  of  the 
Western  Shore  that  he  would  convene  the  clergy  for  the  purpose 
of  addressing  the  present  bishop  on  his  promotion  to  the  see  of 
London,  and  that  the  commissary  had  expressed  his  willingness 
to  do  so,  but  had  said  that  he  had  not  the  requisite  power. 
Whereupon  Rainsford  adds  that  the  clergy  know  who  their 
bishop  is,  and  if  they  forget  their  oath  of  canonical  obedience 
it  is  no  fault  of  his.^  Soon  after  this,  at  the  governor's  sugges- 
tion, the  clergy  of  the  Western  Shore  convened  and  drew  up  a 

^  Hawks,  whom  I  have  followed  closely  on  this  point,  is  particularly  strong 
in  his  emphasis  on  the  unassailability  of  the  inducted  clergyman.  For  his 
opinion,  see  above,  p.  6.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  he  is  not  suffi- 
ciently careful  to  distinguish  between  theory  and  practice. 

2  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  233-234. 


COMMISSARIAL   ACTIVITY  IN  MARYLAND.  73 

message  of  congratulation  to  their  new  diocesan.  Their  atti- 
tude toward  him  seems  to  have  been  particularly  encouraging ; 
for,  after  assuring  him  that  he  had  gone  to  work  more  resolutely 
than  any  of  his  predecessors,  they  agree  to  answer  all  his 
queries,  and  promise  him  their  obedience  and  aid  in  sustaining 
his  jurisdiction. 1  In  a  few  weeks  the  clergy  of  the  Eastern 
Shore,  evidently  convoked  by  their  commissary,  sent  a  letter  of 
congratulation  to  their  new  bishop.  In  it  they  spoke  in  high 
terms  of  the  friendly  attitude  of  Lord  Baltimore,  deplored  the 
want  of  a  regular  spiritual  jurisdiction,  and  for  more  specific 
information  referred  to  their  answers  to  his  Lordship's  queries.^ 

These  answers,  which  are  given  in  full  in  Perry's  documents, 
shed  considerable  light  on  the  existing  ecclesiastical  situation. 
They  show,  for  example,  what  laws  have  been  made  in  the 
province  in  relation  to  the  church,  the  clergy,  and  the  schools. 
On  the  Western  Shore  it  seems  to  have  been  the  custom  for  the 
commissary  to  hold  a  visitation  of  all  the  churches,  schools,  and 
glebes  once  in  three  years.  A  meeting  of  the  clergy  and 
church  wardens  was  usually  held  once  a  year.  At  this  time 
clergymen  who  were  accused  of  any  faults  were  presented,  and 
six  months  afterward  the  commissary  visited  the  several  parishes 
of  such  parsons  as  had  been  accused.^ 

A  letter  written  in  the  autumn  of  this  year  (1724)  by  Wilkin- 
son, of  the  Eastern  Shore,  gives  an  interesting  account  of  his 
methods  of  procedure  as  commissary  under  Gibson's  predecessor. 
Foreseeing  that  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  which 
had  been  committed  to  him  was  "of  no  great  moment  and 
new  "  in  that  province,  and  that  the  management  of  it  would  be 
attended  with  difficulties,  and  realizing  particularly  that  a  false 
step  at  first  would  be  fatal  to  its  future  success,  he  convoked 
the  clergy  at  once  for  consultation.  In  convention  they  agreed 
upon  certain  articles,  which  Wilkinson  laid  before  the  govern- 
ment and  also  sent  to  Bishop  Robinson,  in  both  cases  securing 
approval  of  them.  He  then  delivered  these  articles  to  his 
clergy,  and,  among  other  things,  ordered  them  to  present  for 

^May  29,  1724,  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  234-235. 
2  July  16,  1724,  Ibid.  239-241. 
^Ibid.  131  ff. 


74  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

punishment  none  but  such  as  were  "  notoriously  guilty  "  ;  others 
they  should  privately  admonish  in  the  presence  of  the  church 
wardens  and  vestry  of  the  parish.  The  commissary  next  pro- 
ceeded to  make  personal  visitations  of  the  parish  churches, 
glebes,  and  houses,  to  examine  their  condition,  and  to  advise 
necessary  repairs.  During  these  visitations  he  licensed  such 
schoolmasters  as  he  found  qualified  to  teach,  and  issued  cita- 
tions to  the  church  wardens  to  appear  at  the  general  con- 
ventions. They  came  at  the  time  appointed,  bringing  their 
presentments  with  them;  whereupon  Wilkinson  proceeded, 
"  after  the  same  manner  used  in  the  spiritual  courts  in  Eng- 
land, as  near  as  the  circumstances  of  the  country  would  per- 
mit." He  did  everything  gratis  himself,  without  proctor  or 
registrar. 

In  the  opinion  of  Wilkinson,  the  plan  of  ecclesiastical  censures 
seems  to  have  worked  well.  He  says  that  it  caused  a  "  visible 
reformation  "  in  that  part  of  the  province,  and  that  "  the  sight 
of  one  person  performing  penance  struck  a  greater  terror  upon 
all  offenders  than  all  the  pecuniary  and  corporal  punishments 
which  the  secular  courts  inflict,  as  some  of  'em  have  publickly 
acknowledged."  ^  Wilkinson  was  undoubtedly  optimistic  as  to 
the  success  of  his  plan ;  but  he  certainly  was  a  popular  com- 
missary, at  least  so  far  as  such  an  officer  could  be  popular 
among  the  conflicting  elements  of  colonial  opposition  to  the 
institution;  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that,  among  those 
willing  to  recognize  his  authority,  his  punitary  measure  had 
some  efficacy. 

The  class  of  well-disposed  individuals  was  all  too  small,  how- 
ever ;  and  it  was  evident  that  among  the  churchmen  at  large  in 
Maryland  this  form  of  exercising  ecclesiastical  discipline  was 
far  from  satisfactory.  In  view  of  this  fact,  a  motion  was  made 
in  the  lower  house  of  the  Maryland  assembly  to  erect  "  a  Juris- 
diction for  the  better  Government  of  the  Church  and  Clergy." 
This  immediately  called  forth  a  "  Humble  Representation  "  from 
the  clergy  to  the  governor  and  upper  and  lower  houses.  Their 
chief  complaint  against  the  proposition  lay  in  the  fact  that  it 

1  Wilkinson  to  Gibson,  September  9,  1724,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections^ 
iv.  (Maryland)  244-246. 


THE  MARYLAND  ASSEMBLY  AND   THE  CLERGY.       75 

purposed  to  place  the  jurisdiction  in  the  hands  of  laymen,  a  pro- 
ceeding which  the  petitioners  pronounced  "inconsistent  with 
the  Lord  Proprietary's  Charter  and  with  the  rules  of  good 
reason,  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  the  realm  of  Great  Britain, 
destructive  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  England,  &  w' 
they  can't  in  conscience  submit  to  as  being  altogether  opposite 
to  the  ordination  vow."  They  admitted,  however,  that  there 
was  need  of  a  law  for  the  enforcement  of  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction in  the  province,  and  expressed  their  willingness  to  confer 
with  the  legislature  upon  the  proper  heads  of  a  bill  for  that 
purpose.^ 

The  reply  of  the  lower  house  to  this  petition  was  extremely 
favorable.  It  believed  that  the  scandals  which  at  that  time 
were  manifest  in  the  lives  of  the  clergy  were  due  to  the  want  of 
some  jurisdiction  to  correct  offenders  ;  for  since  the  Bishop  of 
London's  commissaries  were  not  strong  enough  to  correct 
clerical  offenders,  and  since  the  clergy  claimed  exemption  from 
lay  jurisdiction,  there  was  practically  no  power  over  them.  But 
while  insisting  that  something  be  done,  the  assembly  expressed 
a  readiness  to  accept  the  clergy's  offer  of  assistance  in  drafting 
a  bill  to  stop  these  infringements  against  law  and  morality.^  Ulti- 
mately, however,  the  assembly  decided  to  adhere  to  the  original 
purpose  of  establishing  a  jurisdiction  of  lay  persons  over  the 
clergy ;  and,  in  the  words  of  Wilkinson,  nothing  could  prevent 
the  execution  of  the  measure  unless  the  governor,  the  only  friend 
in  the  province  upon  whom  the  clergy  could  rely,  refused  to  give 
his  consent.^  At  this  juncture  Governor  Calvert  intervened,  in 
the  interest  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  He  gave  two  reasons 
for  refusing  to  sanction  the  proceedings  of  the  assembly :  first, 
because  the  clergy  were  under  the  bishop's  inspection,  and  it 
was  for  him  to  see  to  it  that  they  were  properly  disciplined ; 
secondly,  because  in  his  opinion  there  was  no  ground  for  the 

1  Petition  enclosed  in  a  letter  to  Gibson,  November  20,  1724,  in  Perry,  His- 
torical Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  247-248. 

"^  Reply  enclosed  in  the  same  letter,  Ibid.  248-249. 

^Wilkinson  to  Gibson,  June  15,  1726,  Ibid.  254-255.  It  appears  from  a 
letter  of  Governor  Calvert  to  Gibson  that  this  step  was  due  to  the  machina- 
tions of  one  Thomas  Bardley,  a  lawyer,  who  was  an  enemy  of  the  governor. 


^6  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

extravagant  charge  against  their  conduct.^  However  cogent  his 
reasons  may  have  seemed,  the  interference  of  Calvert  was  all 
that  was  necessary  to  block  the  measure.^ 

In  1730  Gibson  made  the  energetic  Henderson  commissary  of 
the  Eastern  as  well  as  of  the  Western  Shore.^  At  his  first  visita- 
tion, held  in  the  former  district  June  24,  1730,  he  stated  that  the 
objects  of  his  coming  were  to  examine  credentials,  to  bespeak 
the  assistance  and  concurrence  of  the  clergy  for  a  strict  and 
orderly  administration  of  the  divine  offices,  and  to  exhort  them 
to  a  suitable  and  exemplary  life  and  conversation  ;  ^  and  at  a 
meeting  held  on  the  other  Shore  he  repeated  the  speech.^  At 
both  convocations  his  acts  and  recommendations  were  necessarily 
of  a  purely  spiritual  nature ;  for  Henderson,  much  as  he  might 
perhaps  have  wished,  was  in  no  position  to  go  further.  In  the 
first  place,  he  was  unpopular  with  the  governor,  against  whom 
he  had  appealed  to  Lord  Baltimore  through  his  diocesan, 
and  also  with  a  great  majority  of  the  people  ;  in  the  second 
place,  he  dared  not  set  up  any  jurisdiction  until  he  had  re- 
ceived an  exemplification  of  the  royal  commission ;  for,  had 
he  attempted  to  act  without  the  authority  of  this  instrument, 
undoubtedly  the  provincial  court  would  have  stayed  him.^  A 
copy  of  the  commission  from  the  late  king  was  in  his  posses- 
sion, but  that  was  of  course  superseded.  Probably  one  of  the 
new  copies  had  been  sent  to  him,  but  had  either  been  lost  on  the 
way,  or,  as  he  suspected,  had  been  suppressed  by  his  enemy 
the  governor.''  In  spite  of  his  zeal,  therefore,  Henderson  con- 
tinued impotent. 

1  Calvert  to  Gibson,  June  22,  1725,  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Mary- 
land) 249-250. 

2  There  is  considerable  evidence  even  from  their  own  midst  that  the  moral 
condition  of  the  clergy  was  bad  :  see,  for  example,  the  admission  of  the  peti- 
tioners themselves  (above,  p.  75),  and  compare  also  Wilkinson  to  Gibson, 
December  4,  1727  (Perry,  Ibid.  259-260). 

8  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  204. 

*  For  Henderson's  address  to  the  clergy,  with  all  the  proceedings  of  this 
visitation,  see  Perry,  Historical  Collectiotts,  iv.  (Maryland)  288-296. 

^  For  the  second  visitation,  see  Ibid.  297-299. 

^See  Henderson  to  Gibson,  August  12,  ij'^Oylbid.  300-301. 

'  Henderson  to  Gibson,  March  13, 1731-1732,  Ibid.  302-303.  Notwithstand- 
ing these  handicaps,  Henderson  continued  for  a  time  as  an  active  worker  in  the 


COMMISSARIAL  AUTHORITY  CEASES  IN  MARYLAND.       yy 

In  1733  the  proprietary  visited  the  colony.  Although  he 
took  pains  to  prevent  any  further  encroachments  upon  the 
clergy,  and  did  all  he  could  to  reconcile  clergy  and  laity ;  and 
though  he  placed  no  hindrance  in  Henderson's  way  in  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  his  commission,  he  stood, 
nevertheless,  upon  the  provisions  of  his  charter  as  he  under- 
stood them,  and  strictly  maintained  his  rights  in  the  ordering  of 
the  affairs  of  church  discipline  within  the  boundaries  of  the 
province.^  Owing  to  the  difficulty,  or  rather  the  impossibility,  of 
obtaining  the  enforcement  of  the  powers  entrusted  to  him,  Com- 
missary Henderson  resigned  in  1734,  and  from  this  time  the 
Bishop  of  London  ceased  to  be  officially  represented  in  the 
province  of  Maryland.^ 

After  Henderson's  resignation  the  situation  grew  rapidly 
worse.  Owing  to  a  quarrel  with  the  proprietary,  Bishop  Gib- 
son took  little  interest  in  the  Maryland  church  during  the  last 
years  of  his  life.^  The  clergy,  left  to  themselves,  fell  into 
greater  disorders  than  ever.  "  Enthusiasm,  deism,  and  libertism 
(with  all  which  we  abound)  make  no  small  advantage,"  writes 
the  Reverend  Hugh  Jones  to  Gibson,  October  19,  1741,' 
"  especially  seeing  these  sons  of  Eli  are  permitted  to  persevere 
with  impunity,  and  without  censure  or  admonition,  since  the 
offation  of  the  exercise  of  M"".  Henderson's  commissarial  power." 
Having  sketched  the  situation,  he  suggests  a  remedy :  "  The 
vast  importance  .  .  .  [of]  the  affair  obhges  me  in  conscience 
to  inform  your  Lordship  of  the  great  necessity  there  is  for  a 
strict  spiritual  discipline  over  the  Clergy  here,  either  by  an 
effectual  restitution  of  your  Lordship's  delegated  Jurisdiction,  or 
by  the  Proprietor's  exertion  of  his  power  (according  to  the  Ec- 
clesiastical jurisdiction  of  England,  to  which  his  Charter  refers) 

interests  of  the  clergy ;  he  made  visitations  regularly,  and  resisted  laws  made 
to  curtail  the  clerical  stipends.  August  7,  173I'  he  again  urged  his  diocesan 
to  send  him  an  attest  of  the  royal  commission,  in  order  that  he  might  proceed 
against  one  Mr.  Urmston,  who  had  been  complained  of  by  his  parishioners 
for  leading  a  scandalous  life. 

1  Henderson  to  Gibson,  June  5,  1733,  Ibid.  311-313- 

2  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  309-310;    Hawks,  Ecclesiastical 
Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  222. 

3  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  230. 


78  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

if  the  right  be  really  invested  in  him  ;  or  else  by  a  conjunction 
of  your  Lordship's  authority  &  his  ;  or  finally  by  an  Act  of  Par- 
liament or  Assembly  obtained  for  the  purpose  or  by  what  other 
method  your  Lordship's  prudence  and  Interest  can  accomplish 
so  great  &  necessary  a  work."  But  no  heed  was  paid  either  to 
Jones's  representation  or  to  his  suggestions,  and  at  the  time  of 
Gibson's  death  the  theoretical  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  had  no  basis  in  fact.^ 

The  Nestor  among  American  commissaries,  Blair,  of  Vir- 
ginia, hved  nearly  through  the  Gibson  period.  In  a  letter  to 
his  diocesan  of  February  lO,  1723-24,  he  gives  some  account 
of  his  work.  Bishop  Compton  had  directed  him,  many  years 
before,  to  make  no  further  use  of  his  commission  than  was 
necessary  to  keep  the  clergy  in  order.  In  consequence  of 
this  advice  and  of  the  conditions  that  he  had  to  face,  Blair 
had  never  attempted  to  exercise  coercive  jurisdiction  by  set- 
ting up  a  spiritual  court.  Indeed,  unless  an  accused  clergy- 
man were  notoriously  delinquent,  he  had  been  accustomed 
to  proceed  no  farther  than  to  admonition;  for,  owing  to  the 
dearth  of  clergymen,^  it  was  difficult  to  fill  the  place  of  one 
suspended.^  During  the  interval  between  Gibson's  accession 
and  the  issue  of  the  royal  commission  of  1727,  some  of  the 
clergy,  "looking  upon  it  as  a  time  of  misrule  .  .  .  became 
exceeding  scandalous,"  apparently  worse  than  usual*  Blair 
chafed  under  the  temporary  restraint  which  deprived  him  of 
his  accustomed  authority,  though  even  when  he  was  vested  with 
full  commissarial  powers  he  seems  never  to  have  been  a  very 
keen  disciplinarian.^ 

1  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  323-324. 

2  Blair  states  that  at  the  time  of  writing  there  were  at  least  two  vacancies 
with  no  clergymen  to  supply  them. 

3  May  13,  1724,  Blair  writes  that  he  has  made  only  two  suspensions  in  the 
thirty-four  years  that  he  has  been  commissary.  He  wants  his  commission  in 
order  to  suspend  two  more  clergymen  accused  of  drunkenness.  It  was  evi- 
dently the  custom  for  each  successive  Bishop  to  renew  the  commissarial  com- 
missions. For  Blair's  letter,  see  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia) 
252-253,  and  Fnlham  MSS. 

^  Blair  to  Gibson,  June  21,  1725,  Ftdham  MSS. 

^  Blair  rarely  prosecuted  except  when  public  opinion  required  him  to  do  so, 
and  even  then  he  never  resorted  to  coercion.     A  letter  which  he  wrote  to 


CLERICAL   TENURE  /AT  MARYLAND. 


79 


'  Throughout  the  Gibson  period  the  precariousness  of  the 
clerical  tenure  in  Virginia  was  a  matter  of  much  concern  to 
the  parish  priests  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  From  an 
examination  of  the  answers  which  the  Virginia  pastors  returned 
to  his  queries,  Gibson  first  learned  how  dependent  many  of 
them  were  on  the  arbitrary  will  of  their  flocks.  A  large  num- 
ber of  them  he  found  to  be  without  institution  or  induction, 
the  parishes  having  disregarded  the  law  directing  them  to 
make  presentations  to  the  governors,  and  the  governors  having 
neglected  to  make  use  of  their  powers  as  ordinaries  to  induct 
without  presentation  when  such  lapses  occurred.  In  order  to 
remedy  this  state  of  affairs,  Gibson  petitioned  the  king  to 
instruct  the  governors,  in  case  of  neglect  of  presentation  by 
parishes.  Jure  devoluto,  to  collate  and  induct  suitable  clerks. 
The  bishop  thought,  however,  that  six  months,  the  term 
allowed  to  patrons  by  English  ecclesiastical  law,  was  too 
short  a  time  for  the  colonies,  particularly  when  the  clergyman 
came  from  England,  as  was  most  often  the  case.  In  view  of 
these  facts,  he  recommended  that  in  the  colonies  the  term  be 
lengthened  to  eighteen  months.^  Later,  William  Gooch,  who 
came  over  as  governor  in  1727,  undertook  to  adjust  the  matter 
in  the  interest  of  the  establishment ;  ^  but  he  was  evidently 
unable  to  effect  a  settlement. 

As  years  went  by,  the  establishment  steadily  lost  ground  in 
Virginia,  and  cognizance  of  spiritual  affairs  came  more  and 
more  into  the  hands  of  the  governor  and  council.     Much  blame 

Bishop  Gibson,  March  24,  1734,  concerning  accusations  of  drunkenness  among 
the  clergy,  is  characteristic.  While  admitting  that  the  charges  are  in  a 
measure  true,  he  adds  :  "  It  is  neither  so  general,  nor  to  such  a  degree  as  he 
[an  anonymous  accuser]  represents  it.  Some  of  the  persons  he  names  I  have 
admonished  both  in  discourse  and  writing,  and  have  found  some  good  effects 
of  these  admonitions.  But  it  is  a  mighty  hard  matter  to  prove  any  of  these 
things  upon  them ;  it  is  an  office  which  everybody  declines  ;  except  when  the 
scandal  is  very  great;  and  then  when  they  fear  a  public  prosecution,  they 
contrive  to  leave  the  country.  I  shall  take  occasion  to  renew  my  admonition 
to  some  persons  on  this  subject ;  but  I  may  safely  tell  your  L*^?  it  is  not  near 
so  bad  as  that  anonymous  person  represents"  {Fulham  MSS.'). 

^The  petition,  dated  1724,  is  printed  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i. 
(Virginia)  345-346. 

2  See  Blair  to  Gibson,  October  28,  1728,  Ibid.  352-353. 


80  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

was  laid  on  Blair.  It  was  admitted  that  he  was  a  good  man  ; 
but  he  was  advancing  in  years,  and  it  was  generally  felt  that 
he  was  not  equal  to  the  requirements  of  the  office.  Accord- 
ingly a  wish  was  expressed  for  a  deputy  commissary,  "  a 
clergyman  of  known  zeal,  courage,  &  resolution  &  such  as 
could  redress  some  great  neglects  of  duty,"  among  the  clergy, 
"  and  bring  Episcopacy  to  be  better  regarded."  ^  But  Blair's 
life  was  drawing  to  a  close.  He  died  in  1743,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  William  Dawson,  who  had  been  recommended  by 
Governor  Gooch.^  Dawson  received  his  commission  July  18, 
1743,  having  been  previously  elected  president  of  William  and 
Mary  College  by  the  unanimous  choice  of  the  visitors.^ 

By  far  the  most  energetic  of  Gibson's  commissaries  was 
Alexander  Garden  of  Carolina.  He  made  visitations  almost 
every  year,  examined  letters  of  orders  and  licenses,  heard  com- 
plaints, regulated  disorders,  enforced  the  instructions  of  the 
bishop,  and  transmitted  accounts  of  his  proceedings,  both  to 
his  ecclesiastical  superior  and  to  the  Society  for  Propagating 
the  Gospel.  He  was  very  active  as  a  disciplinarian,  and  was 
somewhat  of  a  stickler  for  formality,  seeking  to  conduct  his 
trials  more  in  accordance  with  canonical  form  than  any  other 
commissary  in  the  colonies. 

From  the  many  prosecutions  which  Garden  undertook,  that 
against  the  celebrated  preacher  George  Whitefield,  may,  al- 
though it  came  to  nothing,  be  selected  for  consideration,  as 
perhaps  the  most  interesting.*  On  his  first  visit  to  Charleston, 
in  September,  1738,  Whitefield  was  well  received  by  the  com- 

^  Reverend  Anthony  Gavin  to  Gibson,  October  5,  1 738,  Fulhatn  MSS. ; 
partly  printed  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  360-361. 

-  Gooch  to  Gibson,  May  10,  1743,  in  Perry,  Ibid.  367. 

^  Dawson's  commission  may  be  found  in  the  Ftdham  MSS.  As  commissary, 
Blair  had  no  salary  or  perquisites,  though  the  governor  allowed  him  £\oo  3l 
year  out  of  the  quitrents.  Probably  Dawson  received  the  same.  See  Hart- 
well,  Blair,  and  Chilton,  Present  State  of  Virginia. 

*  These  letters  are  in  the  Fulham  MSS.  The  most  complete  account  of 
the  affair  yet  written  may  be  found  in  Tyerman,  Life  of  Whitefield,  i.  passim. 
(See  index,  under  "  Garden.")  Tyerman,  however,  had  not  examined  the 
letters  at  Fulham.  He  errs  in  saying  (i.  399-400)  that  it  was  "  the  first 
Episcopal  Court  in  the  British  Colonies." 


THE  TRIAL   OF  WHITEFIELD.  8 1 

missary.i  This  was  before  he  began  to  exhibit  to  such  a  marked 
degree  those  qualities  of  enthusiasm  and  radicalism  which  after- 
ward caused  the  orthodox  among  his  clerical  brethren  to  regard 
him  with  suspicion.  By  the  time  of  his  second  visit  to  South 
Carolina,  he  had  come  to  be  distrusted  by  Garden ;  hence, 
when  he  called  at  the  latter's  house  in  Charleston,  March  14, 
1740,  he  was  very  coolly  received.  In  the  course  of  the  in- 
terview which  followed,  the  commissary  charged  him  with 
breaking  the  canons  of  the  church  as  well  as  his  ordination 
vows,  and  warned  him  that,  if  he  preached  in  any  public  church 
in  the  province,  he  would  suspend  him.  Whitefield  replied,  "  I 
shall  regard  that  as  much  as  I  would  a  Pope's  Bull."  After 
some  further  discussion,  which  became  more  and  more  heated, 
Garden  ordered  him  to  leave  the  house.^  Disregarding  the 
commissary's  warning,  Whitefield  continued  to  preach,  and  was 
in  consequence  brought  to  trial.^ 

The  citation  was  issued  on  the  eleventh  of  July,  and  on  the 
fifteenth  the  trial  was  opened.*     Whitefield  refused  to  answer 

1 "  I  was  received  in  a  most  Christian  manner  by  the  Bishop  of  London's 
commissary,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Garden,  a  good  soldier  of  Jesus  Christ"  (Tyerman, 
Life  of  Whitefield,  \.  143). 

^  Continuation  of  Whitefield^ s  foiirnal,  after  his  arrival  at  Georgia,  March 
14,  1740. 

3  During  the  interval  between  the  interview  of  March  14  and  the  opening 
of  the  trial,  Garden  took  occasion  more  than  once  to  denounce  Whitefield 
from  his  pulpit,  and  wrote  several  letters,  later  published  in  pamphlet  form,  in 
answer  to  some  printed  utterances  of  Whitefield  upon  various  subjects,  in- 
cluding an  attack  on  Archbishop  Tillotson  and  strictures  on  Southern  slave- 
holders.    See  Tyerman,  Life  of  Whitefield,  i.  359-364. 

*  The  most  detailed  description  of  the  trial  is  in  Tyerman,  Life  of  White- 
field,  i.  396-401.  A  full  account  which  Garden  sent  to  his  diocesan  is  unfor- 
tunately missing,  as  appears  from  a  remark  in  a  letter  of  July  8,  1743,  from 
Garden  to  Gibson,  to  the  effect  that  the  account  which  he  sent  with  his  letter 
of  January  28,  1741,  had  probably  miscarried,  since  he  had  heard  nothing  of 
it.  It  is  certainly  not  among  the  manuscripts  at  Fulham.  For  Garden's  side 
of  the  story  we  have  to  depend  on  a  rather  meagre  report  of  the  case  embodied 
in  his  answer  to  Bishop  Sherlock's  "  circular  letter."  This  may  be  found 
among  the  Carolina  manuscripts  at  Fulham,  under  date  February  i,  1750. 
Tyerman  apparently  never  saw  this  letter.  The  form  of  citation  was  that 
provided  by  Gibson's  Methodus  Procedendi  (see  below,  Appendix  A,  No.  vi., 
where  the  complete  text  is  given). 

6 


82  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

the  articles  of  accusation  presented  against  him  until  he  was 
satisfied  that  the  court  had  the  requisite  authority  to  examine 
him.  After  the  commissary's  commission  had  been  produced, 
Whitefield  preceded  to  question  the  jurisdictional  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  London  over  his  case.  He  argued,  first,  that 
neither  the  bishop  nor  his  agent  had  power  to  exercise  legal 
jurisdiction  in  special  cases  in  South  Carolina  unless  supported 
by  acts  of  the  colonial  assembly  ;  and  secondly,  that  in  any  case 
he  was,  as  a  resident  of  Georgia,  beyond  the  scope  of  Garden's 
commissarial  court.  He  said,  moreover,  that  "  though  he  had 
preached  in  the  fields  near  London,  the  bishop  had  never  attempted 
to  exercise  such  authority  over  him ;  and  that  the  Trustees  of 
Georgia,  to  his  knowledge,  doubted  whether  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don had  any  jurisdiction  in  the  transatlantic  colonies."  ^ 

At  Whitefield's  request  a  day  was  given  him  in  which  to 
secure  information  as  to  the  extent  of  the  commissary's  jurisdic- 
tion. When  the  court  opened  on  the  next  day  he  presented  a 
recusatio  judicis,  that  is,  a  refusal  to  accept  Garden  as  his  judge. 
This  recusatio  was  based  on  the  ground  that  the  commissary 
had  no  power  to  proceed  against  him,  since,  as  a  clergyman  of 
Georgia,  he  was  out  of  the  limits  of  Garden's  jurisdiction.^ 
Moreover,  he  alleged  that  Garden  was  his  enemy  and  had 
written  and  preached  very  bitterly  against  him.^  Then  a  dis- 
pute arose  as  to  who  should  pass  upon  the  recusatio.  The  com- 
missary's attorney  wanted  it  to  be  tried  in  court,  but  Whitefield 
wished  it  to  be  referred  to  six  arbitrators,  three  to  be  chosen  by 
each  party.  Thereupon  Whitefield  named  as  the  three  who 
were  to  act  on  his  part  two  Independents  and  one  French  Cal- 
vinist,  all  of  whom,  according  to  Garden,  were  "zealous  admirers" 
of  the  accused. 

1  Garden  to  Sherlock,  February  i,  1750,  Fulhain  MSS. 

'■^Whitefield  to  Gibson,  September  8,  1740,  Fulham  MSS. 

3  Garden,  in  his  letter  of  February  i,  1750,  mentions  only  the  latter  reason, 
and  Tyerman  {Life  of  Whitefield,  i.  399)  makes  the  same  statement.  Possibly 
this  was  the  real  reason ;  for  Whitefield  would  hardly  have  wished  to  be  tried 
by  a  prejudiced  judge.  Nevertheless,  an  exception  based  on  want  of  jurisdic- 
tion would  have  been  more  easy  to  sustain  than  one  founded  on  merely  per- 
sonal grounds  ;  and  this  cause  was  probably  the  one  insisted  on  then  and  in 
the  subsequent  appeal. 


THE  TRIAL   OF  WHITEFIELD.  83 

Garden  saw  many  obstacles  in  the  way  of  submitting  the 
exception  to  the  ruling  of  the  arbitrators.  In  the  first  place, 
there  was  the  difficulty  of  securing  a  non-partisan  judgment 
from  such  a  board ;  in  the  second  place,  if  the  members  failed 
to  agree,  the  case  would  probably  have  to  be  dropped,  as  the 
law  made  no  provision  for  such  an  exigency ;  and,  finally,  if  they 
decided  against  the  commissary,  the  laws  were  equally  silent  as 
to  who  should  be  appointed  as  judge  in  his  place.  In  view  of 
these  difficulties,  the  commissary  refused  to  allow  the  recusatio 
to  be  arbitrated,  whereupon  Whitefield  appealed  to  the  Enghsh 
authorities.^  In  compliance  with  the  legal  formalities  in  such  a 
case,  he  was  conducted  before  the  commissary  by  the  latter's 
apparitor,  and  took  an  oath  to  lodge  his  appeal  within  twelve 
months,  depositing  ten  pounds  as  a  guarantee  that  his  oath 
would  be  observed. 

Garden  kept  the  court  in  regular  adjournment  for  five  months 
after  the  expiration  of  the  judicatory  term  allowed  for  such  ap- 
peals, that  is,  twelve  months,  waiting  for  an  official  notification 
of  the  result  of  the  appeal.^  This  did  not  come  to  hand ;  but, 
inferring  from  a  letter  which  he  received  that  "  Whitefield  had 
deserted  his  Appeal,  notwithstanding  his  solemn  oath,  in  open 
court,  bona  fide  to  prosecute  it,"  the  commissary  decided  to 
carry  on  the  case.  Accordingly,  he  again  summoned  Whitefield 
to  appear  before  the  court ;  and  as  the  latter  neither  came  nor 
answered  his  summons,  he  proceeded  to  examine  witnesses,  and 
on  their  evidence  found  him  guilty  of  preaching  in  dissenting 

^  Whitefield,  according  to  his  own  words,  "  appealed,  according  to  law,  to 
four  of  His  Majesty's  commissioners  for  reviewing  appeals,  to  know  whether 
the  commissary  ought  not  to  have  accepted  a  reaisatio  judicis,  which  I  lodged 
in  the  court"  (Whitefield  to  Gibson,  September  8,  1740,  Fulham  MSS.,  and 
Tyerman,  Life  of  Whitefield,  i.  405).  Although  it  is  uncertain  whom  his 
appeal  ultimately  reached,  it  is  certain  that  it  was  not,  as  Tyerman  asserts 
i^Ibid.  400),  directed  to  the  High  Court  of  Chancery. 

-See  Garden  to  Gibson,  January  28,  1741  :  "I  could  have  wished  that  the 
council  your  Lordship  employed  had,  on  the  expiration  of  the  Juratory  Term, 
transmitted  a  proper  Certificate  from  the  Office,  that  Whitefield  has  deserted 
his  Appeal  w"^^  (if  I  am  rightly  informed)  is  the  Method  in  Cases  of  Appeals 
in  Civil  Matters  fi"om  America,  and  would  not  have  been  denied  them " 
{Fidha/n  MSS.).  But  the  evidence  is  not  altogether  clear  that  Whitefield 
actually  deserted  his  appeal. 


84  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

meeting-houses  and  conducting  service  without  the  forms  pre- 
scribed in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  At  the  conclusion  of 
the  trial  he  pronounced  upon  him  the  sentence  of  suspension 
from  the  exercise  of  his  functions  as  a  minister  of  the  Church 
of  England.^  In  a  subsequent  letter  to  his  bishop,  Commissary- 
Garden  informed  him  that,  if  the  lords  appellees  did  not  approve 
of  his  sentence,  they  might  annul  it.  In  any  case  he  regarded 
the  matter  as  ended  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  having  done  all 
he  could  with  the  means  at  his  disposal.^ 

The  evidence  concerning  the  history  of  Whitefield's  appeal 
to  the  authorities  in  England  is  very  obscure  and  conflicting. 
Unfortunately,  as  he  ceased  to  keep  up  his  Journal  after  his 
arrival  in  England  in  the  spring  of  1741,  his  side  of  the  story 
can  be  gathered  only  from  occasional  allusions  in  his  letters. 
On  the  whole,  however,  one  is  inclined  to  doubt  Garden's  asser- 
tion that  Whitefield  deliberately  deserted  his  appeal.  Certainly 
there  is  good  evidence  to  show  that  he  intended  at  the  start 
to  prosecute  it  in  all  earnestness.  In  the  first  place,  he  took 
an  oath  and  deposited  a  money  pledge  in  the  commissary's  court 
to  lodge  his  appeal  within  a  year  before  the  proper  authorities.^ 
Secondly,  on  September  8,  1740,  he  wrote  to  Bishop  Gibson 
informing  him  of  his  action,  and  seeking  his  Lordship's 
opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  of  the 
commissary  of  the  Carolinas.*  Again,  and  this  is  a  far  more 
certain  proof  of  the  honesty  of  his  intention  at  this  time,  he 
wrote  to  a  friend  in  London  :  "  The  bearer  brings  the  authentic 
copy  of  my  appeal.  I  sent  you  another  copy  from  Carolina. 
Be  pleased  to  keep  this  I  have  now  sent,  till  you  hear  of  my 
coming  to  England.  If  I  come  in  the  spring,  I  will  lodge  it 
myself ;  if  not,  be  pleased  to  lodge  it  for  me,  and  I  will  pay  all 

^Garden  to  Sherlock,  February  i,  1750,  Fulham  MSS.  The  sentence  was 
apparently  in  the  form  prescribed  by  Gibson  in  the  Methodiis  Procedendi  (see 
below,  Appendix  A,  No.  vi.).  An  English  form  of  the  sentence  is  given  in 
Tyerman,  Life  of  Whitefield.,  i.  400. 

■■^Garden  to  Gibson,  January  28,  1741,  Fiilham  MSS. 

3  Tyerman,  Life  of  Whitefield.,  i.  399. 

*  There  is  a  copy  of  this  letter  in  the  Fulham  MSS.  It  is  printed  in  Tyer- 
man, Life  of  Whitefield.,  i.  405-406. 


WHITEFIELD'S  APPEAL.  8$ 

expenses."  ^  Finally,  there  are  two  bits  of  evidence  showing 
that,  although  he  may  have  been  glad  to  get  rid  of  the  matter, 
it  was  not  through  any  neglect  on  his  part  that  the  case  was 
dropped.  The  first  piece  of  evidence  is  in  a  letter  to  a  friend, 
dated  April  lo,  1741,  a  month  after  his  arrival  in  England,  in 
which  he  says,  "  My  'Appeal'  will  come  to  nothing,  I  believe."^ 
The  second  is  at  the  end  of  a  letter  to  James  Habersham, 
December  7,  1741,  where  he  writes  triumphantly:  "The  Lords 
see  through  Mr.  Garden's  enmity,  and  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  my  Appeal;  so  that  a  hook  is  put  into  the  leviathan's 
jaws."  ^ 

All  this  goes  to  show  that,  although  Whitefield  would  have 
been  glad  to  see  the  matter  at  an  end,  he  was  zealous  enough 
to  push  it  until  he  saw  that  nothing  was  going  to  be  accom- 
pHshed.  The  delay  which  prolonged  the  proceedings  beyond 
the  regular  judicial  term  was  evidently  due  to  a  misunderstand- 
ing as  to  where  the  appeal  should  go,  but  it  is  difficult  to  know 
just  where  to  place  the  blame.  Whitefield  himself  expressly 
says,  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  Gibson,  that  he  had  appealed 
"according  to  law,  to  four  of  His  Majesty's  commissioners  for 
reviewing  appeals."  On  the  other  hand,  an  account  in  a  com- 
munication from  the  Council  Office  seems  to  indicate  that  he 
had  not  appealed  to  the  proper  persons.  Early  in  May,  1742, 
he  called  at  the  Office  to  obtain  some  information  about  his 
appeal,  not  being  able  to  understand  from  his  solicitor  exactly 
what  had  been  done  about  it.  William  Sharpe,  who  received 
him,  informed  him  that  it  had  been  returned  to  his  solicitor  "  as 
improper  to  be  laid  before  his  Majesty  in  Council,  his  Majesty 
having  Appointed  Commissioners  for  hearing  and  Determining 
Appeals  of  that  Nature."  Whereupon,  Whitefield  said  that  he 
would  forthwith  appeal  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the 
first  named  in  the  commission,  to  obtain  a  hearing.^  Bishop 
Gibson,  to  whom  Sharpe  had  written  for  advice,  evidently 
applied  in  his  turn  to  Commissary  Garden,  who  sent  a  reply 

^Tyerman,  Life  of  Whitefield^  \.  406. 

2  [bid.  477. 

^  Ibid.  539. 

■*  Letter  from  the  Council  Office  to  Gibson,  May  15,  1742,  Fulham  MSS. 


86  GIBSON  TO  SHERLOCK. 

which  serves  only  to  confuse  the  case  still  more.  "Mr.  White- 
field's  pretence  of  Mistake  in  lodging  his  Appeal,"  he  says,  "is 
manifestly  idle  &  groundless.  Your  Lordship  knows  that  his 
Appeal  was  directed  not  only  in  general  To  the  most  rev'^  and 
most  noble  &  right  hon^'"  the  Lords  Commiss™"®  &c.  but  to  them, 
by  each  of  the  Names  and  Titles  at  length  set  down  as  speci- 
fied;  so  that  any  such  mistake  was  impossible."^  And  again 
in  a  later  letter  he  says  decidedly :  "  He  interposed  an  Appeal 
to  the  Lords  named  in  the  Royal  Patent;  but  .  .  .  either 
wilfully  or  ignorantly  neglected  to  prosecute  [it]  until  the 
Juratory  Term  .  .  .  was  expired."  ^ 

There  was  evidently  a  mistake  somewhere ;  but  it  seems 
almost  certain  that  the  blame  lay  rather  with  the  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  authorities  in  England  than  with  Whitefield.  All  the 
evidence  available,  especially  the  letter  from  the  council,  indi- 
cates that  Whitefield  certainly  meant  to  apply  to  the  proper 
persons  and  to  get  a  hearing.  But  the  upshot  of  the  matter 
was  that  his  appeal  was  never  granted,  the  suspension  pro- 
nounced upon  him  in  absentia  was  never  removed,  and,  when 
he  continued  to  disregard  it,  Garden  was  only  by  lack  of 
authority  restrained  from  excommunicating  him.^ 

This  is  the  last  important  case  which  occurred  during  the 
term  of  the  Reverend  Alexander  Garden.  In  the  beginning  of 
1749  he  resigned  his  office  as  commissary.  With  his  resigna- 
tion the  visitations,  which  had  been  held  since  1731,  ceased,  and 
were  replaced  by  annual  meetings  of  the  clergy,  the  first  of 
which  was  held  April  5,  1749.^  Garden  resigned  the  rectorship 
of  St.  Philip's   October  29,   1753.      Not  long  after  his  return 

1  Garden  to  Gibson,  July  8,  1743,  Fiilham  MSS. 

2  Garden  to  Sherlock,  February  i,  1750,  Ibid. 

^"  Sentence  of  Suspension  from  his  Office  .  .  .  still  stands  against  him, — 
But  this  Sentence  having  had  no  effect  upon  him  for  his  Reformation  and 
Submission,  I  should  have  long  since  have  proceeded,  pursuant  to  the  Canon, 
to  that  of  Excommunication,  but  for  a  Defect  in  the  Law,  which  would  have 
rendered  it  as  ineffectual  as  the  other,  vizj,  that  the  Writ  de  excommunicato 
capiendo,  could  not  be  issued  against  him  here,  because  the  Statutes  of  Queen 
Eliza''."^  on  which  that  Writ  is  grounded,  do  not  extend  to  America  "  (Garden 
to  Sherlock,  February  i,  1750,  Ibid.). 

*  Dalcho,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Soitth-Carolina,  162. 


SUMMARY  OF  G/B SON'S   WORK.  8/ 

from  a  visit  to  England  he  died  in  Charleston,  September  27, 
1756,  at  the  age  of  seventy-one  years. ^  He  was  the  last 
commissary  who  ever  held  office  in  the  Carolinas. 

Such  is  the  history  of  Gibson's  connection  with  the  colonies. 
Beginning  with  a  consciousness  that  he  had  a  binding  duty  to 
perform  toward  his  charges  beyond  the  sea,  he  took  pains  to 
find  out  all  that  was  possible  concerning  their  condition ;  en- 
deavored to  have  his  authority  set  upon  a  secure  footing ;  and 
then,  having  formulated  rules  for  the  action  of  his  representa- 
tives, he  faithfully  did  his  duty  in  each  particular  case  as  it 
arose.  His  ideal  was  to  carry  on  the  organization  of  the  colo- 
nial churches  under  his  charge,  to  check  disorder  and  strife,  and 
to  supply  the  people  with  earnest  and  worthy  ministers.  In  the 
midst  of  all  his  activity,  he  seems  to  have  been  guided  by  purely 
spiritual  considerations.  While  he  doubtless  recognized  the 
limitations  of  his  power,  he  saw  that  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe 
for  the  introduction  of  any  other  system,  and  so  held  his  peace. 

With  his  successor,  however,  came  a  change  of  policy.  For 
reasons  to  be  explained  later,  Sherlock,  refusing  to  carry  on  the 
jurisdiction  in  the  manner  of  his  predecessors,  sought  to  secure 
the  appointment  of  bishops  resident  in  the  colonies  who  should 
exercise  the  powers  hitherto  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don. But,  before  considering  Sherlock's  work  and  its  conse- 
quences, it  will  be  necessary  to  trace  the  history  of  the  efforts 
to  establish  an  American  episcopacy  which  were  made  previous 
to  his  accession. 

^  Dalcho,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  South-Carolina,  176. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

ATTEMPTS  TO  OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN   EPISCOPATE,   1638-1748. 

The  scheme  of  entrusting  the  government  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  America  to  resident  bishops  is  almost  as  old  as  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  The  early  attempts  to 
secure  such  an  estabUshment  came  from  the  side  of  the  English 
government  and  the  Anglican  hierarchy.  No  sooner  was  the 
Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  founded,  however,  than 
the  initiative  began  to  be  taken  by  the  missionaries  of  that 
body  who  were  resident  in  America.  From  that  time  on,  the 
matter  passed  out  of  the  hands  of  the  English  government,  and, 
so  far  as  it  was  considered  at  all  in  England,  into  those  of  the 
Society  and  of  such  bishops  as  were  connected  with  that  body 
either  as  officers  or  as  members.  After  many  discouragements 
and  delays  the  hopes  of  those  interested  in  the  project  seemed 
about  to  be  fulfilled,  when  they  were  suddenly  shattered  by  the 
death  of  Queen  Anne.  The  new  king  and  his  advisers  had  so 
many  other  affairs  claiming  attention  that  they  could  not  give 
any  consideration  to  a  matter  of  so  little  importance  in  their 
eyes  ;  and  the  agitation,  which  almost  ceased  after  this  set-back, 
was  not  revived  again  till  the  conversion  of  Timothy  Cutler  and 
the  other  Connecticut  ministers,  in  1722,  Thenceforth,  from 
time  to  time,  the  Episcopal  clergymen  of  the  northern  and 
middle  colonies,^  both  individually  and  collectively,  appealed  for 
what  they  characterized  as  an  indispensable  limb  of  their  church 
system ;  but  their  petitions  received  little  attention.  Whether  this 
inattention  was  due  to  indifference,  or  to  a  feeling  that  the  Bishop 
of  London  under  his  new  commission  possessed  powers  suffi- 
ciently adequate  to  render  the  erection  of  an  episcopal  hierarchy 
unnecessary,  it  would  be  hard  to  say.  Certainly  the  English  gov- 
ernment was  not  held  back  then,  as  it  was  later,  by  any  fear  of 
opposition  from  the  colonial  Independents.     At  any  rate,  from 

^  Particularly  in  New  England  in  this  period. 


A  BISHOP  DESIGNED  FOR  NEW  ENGLAND  89 

whatever  cause,  the  subject  was  rarely  discussed  in  public  from 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  George  I.  to  about  1740,  when  Thomas 
Seeker,  then  Bishop  of  Oxford,  again  opened  the  question  in  a 
sermon  before  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel.  Dur- 
ing the  next  few  years  the  movement  was  much  strengthened 
by  the  aid  which  Bishop  Sherlock  lent  it,  particularly  after 
his  elevation  to  the  see  of  London  in  1748,  when  the  question 
began  to  assume  a  public,  political  importance.  Sherlock's 
accession,  therefore,  marks  a  new  epoch  in  the  episcopal  ques- 
tion ;  for,  from  the  time  of  the  failure  of  the  Laudian  projects 
until  Sherlock  began  his  activity,  the  attempts  to  settle  bishops 
in  America  concerned  only  the  church  as  such.^  The  truth  of 
this  statement  will  at  once  be  evident  from  a  short  historical 
examination  of  the  character  of  these  early  attempts. 

They  may  be  classed  under  a  few  main  heads,  namely,  the 
efforts  made  by  the  English  government,  those  made  by  the 
missionaries  resident  in  the  middle  colonies,  4hose  of  the  Society 
and  of  the  higher  clergy  in  answer  to  the  Society's  appeals,  and 
finally  those  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  New  England  from  1722 
onward.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  centre  of  agitation  lay 
chiefly  in  the  middle  and  northern  provinces,  where  the  mis- 
sionaries felt  the  need  of  a  strong  organization.  Few  of  the 
petitions  emanated  from  the  southern  colonies  ;  for,  since  those 
provinces  in  which  the  Church  of  England  was  established  by 
law  felt  no  need  of  a  stronger  system,  the  clergy  were  not  will- 
ing to  curtail  their  accustomed  liberty  by  submitting  to  the 
rigid  supervision  and  authority  of  a  superior,  and  the  laity  were 
not  inclined  to  drain  their  purses  to  supply  revenue  for  what 
they  regarded  as  an  unnecessary  appendage.  Let  us  now  con- 
sider the  history  of  this  subject  somewhat  more  in  detail. 

As  early  as  1638,  Laud  seems  to  have  had  in  mind  a  plan  to 
send  a  bishop  to  New  England,  but  to  have  been  prevented  by 
the  disorders  in  Scotland  from  carrying  out  his  purpose.^  The 
next  attempt  to  establish  a  colonial  bishop  occurred  shortly  after 

^  With  the  possible  exception  of  the  efforts  of  the  Society  in  the  time  of 
Anne  ;  and  even  these  were  apparently  actuated  by  purely  missionary  motives. 

^Heylyn,  Cypriattus  Anglicus  (see  above,  p.  21);  Hawkins,  Missions  of 
the  Church  of  England.,  376. 


90     ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN-  A  AT  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

the  Restoration,  when  Lord  Chancellor  Clarendon  made  prepa- 
rations to  send  Dr.  Alexander  Murray  to  Virginia.^  The  plan 
got  so  far  as  to  receive  the  approval  of  the  king  in  council,  with 
letters  patent  for  the  execution  of  it ;  ^  but  from  some  cause  or 
other  it  came  to  nothing.  Some  writers  attribute  the  failure  to 
the  sudden  accession  to  power  of  the  Cabal  ministry,  and  the 
consequent  dismissal  of  Sir  Orlando  Bridgman,  to  whose  care 
the  matter  had  been  intrusted  ;  ^  other  writers  ascribe  it  to  the 
opposition  excited  because  the  "  endowment  was  payable  out  of 
the  customs."  * 

^  The  draft  of  a  patent  for  the  creation  of  a  bishopric  in  Virginia  was  found 
in  a  manuscript  of  All  Souls'  College,  Oxford,  and  a  copy  was  brought  to  the 
United  States  by  the  Bishop  of  Virginia  in  1867.  It  was  among  the  papers  of 
Sir  Leoline  Jenkins,  whom  we  have  already  met  as  an  earnest  friend  of  the 
plan  of  extending  the  Church  of  England  in  America  (above  p.  34),  and  was 
probably  drafted  by  his  hand.  Very  likely  this  was  the  patent  under  which 
Sir  Alexander  Murray  was  to  exercise  his  functions.  This  instrument  (j^rinted 
in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  538  if.,  and  in  Foote,  Annals  of 
King's  Chapel,  ii.  229-230)  provides  that  all  the  provinces  —  with  the  excep- 
tion of  New  England,  which  was  to  be  free  from  episcopal  control  —  should 
be  annexed  to  the  diocese  of  Virginia.  The  aim,  as  the  patent  states,  was 
"  to  establish  and  confirm  under  one  and  the  same  order  and  rule,  and  under 
one  doctrine,  discipline,  authority,  and  jurisdiction  all  our  remaining  regions 
and  plantations  in  America." 

2  Archbishop  Seeker  {^Letter  to  Walpole,  17)  informs  us  that  he  first  heard 
of  the  design  from  his  examination  of  the  papers  of  the  late  Bishop  Gibson ; 
and  that  the  "  Letters  Patent  for  that  Purjoose  are  still  extant."  Cf.  Chandler, 
Appeal  Farther  Defended,  148,  note. 

3  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Chnrch  of  England,  376  (from  Gadsden,  Life 
of  Bishop  Dehon,  5).  Murray  says  that  Sir  Orlando  Bridgman,  to  whom, 
together  with  the  new  Bishop  of  London,  the  case  was  referred,  was  put  out 
of  office  by  the  incoming  Cabal  ministry  (see  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical 
Society,  Collectio7is ,  i.  139).  According  to  Chandler  (^Appeal  Farther  De- 
fended, 148),  a  writer  who  furnished  an  extract  from  Cranmer's  Catechism  in 
a  letter  of  February  28,  1770,  said  that  he  had  seen  an  original  letter  —  which 
fell  into  his  hands  by  executorship  —  from  Dr.  Alexander  Murray  giving  an 
account  of  the  proposed  establishment  and  dated,  so  far  as  he  could  recollect, 
October  16,  1673  i  h^  supposed  that  the  "  matter  died,  by  the  Cabal's  throwing 
out  Sir  Orlando  in  the  November  following,  before  the  bishop  and  he  had  made 
their  report."  The  same  view  is  expressed  by  Chandler  (^Free  Examination,  i), 
who  cites  as  reference  "  Some  papers  in  the  late  Duke  of  Bedford's  Office." 

■*  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  England,  376.  Seeker  promulgated 
their  view,  which  was  based  on  an  opinion  of  Gibson  (Seeker,  Letter  to  Wal- 


DEAN  SWIFT  AND    THE   VIRGINIA   BISHOPRIC.  91 

The  next  attempt  seems  to  have  been  in  1664.  It  was 
rumored  that  the  "  Commissioners  for  New  England  "  sent  out 
in  that  year  were  to  establish  bishops  there ;  ^  but  even  if  the 
English  authorities  had  any  such  original  intention,  they  soon 
changed  their  minds,  for,  in  the  set  of  private  instructions  is- 
sued to  the  commissioners,  they  ordered  them  to  take  no  steps 
in  the  direction  of  substituting  episcopacy  for  the  existing  form 
of  religion.^ 

The  next  instance  of  an  attempted  establishment  was  that 
associated  with  the  name  of  Chaplain  Miller  of  New  York,  who 
made  a  vain  effort  to  have  the  Bishop  of  London  consecrate  a 
suffragan  who  should  also  be  charged  with  the  secular  govern- 
ment of  the  province.^ 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  of  these  abortive  plans  which 
took  rise  in  England  was  the  attempt  to  make  Dean  Swift 
Bishop  of  Virginia.  Our  knowledge  of  this  affair  is  based 
on  the  correspondence  between  Swift  and  Colonel  Hunter, 
who,  designated  as  lieutenant  governor  of  Virginia,  but  fail- 
ing to  get  the  position,  went  out  in  171 3  as  governor  to  New 
York.*  From  this  correspondence  it  appears  that  Swift  did 
not  take  the  prospective   appointment   very  seriously,  but   re- 

pole,  ij).  What  Gibson  has  to  say  on  the  matter  may  be  found  in  his 
"  Letter  and  Memorial  on  sending  Bishops  to  the  American  Plantations 
Abroad,"  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  (Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  139). 
1  The  "  Chamber  at  Amsterdam  "  wrote  to  the  governor  and  council  of  New 
Netherlands,  April  21,  1664,  that  it  had  received  news  from  England  "accord- 
ing to  which  his  Royal  Majesty  of  Great  Britain,  being  inclined  to  reduce  all 
his  kingdoms  under  one  form  of  government  in  Church  and  State,  hath  taken 
care  that  Commissioners  are  ready  in  England  to  repair  to  New  England  to 
install  Bishops  there  the  same  as  in  Old  England  "  {New  York  Documents,  ii. 

235)- 

-Ibid.  iii.  59;  cf.  American  Antiquarian  Society  Proceedings.,  New  Series, 
xiii.  202. 

■^  Peiry,  Anierican  Episcopal  Church,  i.  1 60-1 61  ;  McConnell,  American 
Episcopal  Church,  65-67. 

*  Extracts  from  this  correspondence  are  cited  in  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the 
Church  of  England,  378;  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  398-399,  citing 
Swift,  Works  (edited  by  Walter  Scott),  xv.  295,  308,  xvi.  48.  See  also  the 
life  of  Swift,  in  his  Works,  i.  98. 


92      ATTEMPTS   TO    OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

garded  it  as  a  sinecure  and  a  last  resource  in  case  he  could 
get  nothing  better.  On  January  12,  1708-9,  Swift  wrote  to 
Colonel  Hunter  :  "  Voiis  savez  que  —  Monsieur  Addison  notre  ban 
ami  est  fait  secretaire  d'etat  d Irlande ;  and  unless  you  make 
haste  over  and  get  my  Virginia  bishoprick,  he  will  persuade 
me  to  go  with  him,  for  the  Vienna  project  is  off ;  which  is  a 
great  disappointment  to  the  design  I  had  of  displaying  my 
politics  at  the  Emperor's  Court."  ^  On  March  22  of  the  same 
year  he  wrote :  *'  Being  not  able  to  make  my  friends  in  the 
ministry  consider  my  merits  or  their  promises  enough  to  keep 
me  here,  ...  all  my  hopes  now  terminate  in  my  bishoprick  of 
Virginia." 2  After  Hunter  became  governor  of  New  York,  he 
wrote  to  his  friend  intimating  that  he  should  like  to  have  him 
occupy  the  bishopric  for  which  he  had  purchased   a  seat  by 

..  order  of  the  Society.^  But  the  plan  dropped  here.  And  so  too 
did  the  project  of  Archbishop  Sharpe,  which  miscarried  because 
the  Bishop  of  London  was  not  present  at  the  meeting.* 

The  attempts  made  by  clergymen  resident  in  the  colonies  to 
obtain    one   or   more   bishops   to   take  charge  of  their  church 

'  affairs  will  now  be  considered.  With  one  exception  I  know 
of   no   plea    from   this    source   before   the   foundation    of   the 

•  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  in  1701.  This  excep- 
tion is  to  be  found  in  the  work  called  Virginia's  Cure,  writ- 
ten in  1662.  The  author  attributes  the  low  state  of  religion 
in  Virginia,  not  to  the  absence  of  a  bishop,  but  to  the  scattered 
condition  of  the  population,  and  beseeches  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don's aid  in  securing  a   closer  population  and  more  city  life. 

^  Swift,  Works.,  xv.  295-296. 

2  Ibid.  308.  In  a  note  on  the  same  page  we  find  the  following  statement : 
"There  was  a  scheme  on  foot  at  this  time  to  make  Dr.  Swift  Bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia with  power  to  ordain  priests  and  deacons  for  all  our  colonies  in  Amer- 
ica, and  to  parcel  out  that  country  into  deaneries,  parishes,  chapels,  «&:c.,  and 
to  recommend  and  present  thereto ;  which  would  have  been  of  the  greatest 
use  to  the  protestant  religion  in  that  country  had  it  taken  effect." 

3  Hunter  to  Swift,  March  i,  1712-1713:  "I  have  purchased  a  seat  for  a 
bishop,  and  by  orders  from  the  Society  have  given  directions  to  prepare  it  for 
his  reception.  You  once  upon  a  day  gave  me  hopes  of  seeing  you  there.  It 
would  be  to  me  no  small  relief  to  have  so  good  a  friend  to  complain  to  {Ibid. 
xvi.  48). 

^  See  above,  p.  50. 


TALBOT'S  APPEAL  FOR  A  BISHOP.  93 

He  suggests,  however,  as  the  fifth  of  seven  means  by  which 
the  condition  of  the  Virginia  church  might  be  improved,  "  that 
there  being  divers  persons  already  in  the  Colony  fit  to  serve  the 
Church  in  the  office  of  deacon,  a  Bishop  be  sent  over,  so  soon 
as  there  should  be  a  City  for  his  See,  as  for  the  other  needs  of 
that  Church,  so  also,  that  after  due  Probation  and  Examination, 
such  persons  may  be  ordained  Deacons  and  their  Duty  and 
Service  be  appointed  by  the  Bishop."  ^  Yet  this  is  a  bare 
suggestion  and  is  not  insisted  on.  Not  only  is  it  the  sole  re- 
quest for  a  bishop  coming  from  the  colonies  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  but  it  is  one  of  the  very  few  that  came  from  the  south- 
ern colonies  during  the  whole  colonial  period. 

It  may  safely  be  said  that  it  is  with  the  foundation  of  the 
Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  that  earnest  efforts  be- 
gan to  be  made  for  the  establishment  of  bishops  in  North 
America.  The  first  proposal  seems  to  have  come  from  Dr. 
Thomas  Bray,^  who  even  received  some  contributions  in  answer 
to  his  appeal;  but  the  matter  resulted  in  nothing.  Next  to  Dr. 
Bray,  the  most  energetic  and  zealous  among  the  early  mission- 
aries was  the  Reverend  John  Talbot,  who,  with  his  fellow-worker 
George  Keith,  may  be  regarded  as  the  pioneer  of  the  Society  in 
the  middle  colonies.  Beginning  in  1702,^  Talbot  continued  to 
agitate  the  question  upon  every  possible  occasion.  Out  of  his 
many  appeals  the  following  may  be  selected  as  one  of  the  most 
characteristic :  "  The  poor  Church,"  he  writes  in  a  letter  to 
the  Society,  dated  September  i,  1703,  "has  nobody  upon  the 
spot  to  comfort  or  confirm  her  children ;  nobody  to  ordain 
several  that  are  willing  to  serve,  were  they  authorized,  for  the 
work  of  the  Ministry.  Therefore  they  fall  back  again  into  the 
herd  of  the  Dissenters,  rather  than  they  will  be  at  the  Hazard 
and  Charge  to  goe  as  far  as  England  for  orders :  so  that  we 

"^Virginia's  Cure.,  an  Advisive  Narrative,  21. 

2  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  396.  Bray's  Memorial,  represent- 
ing the  Present  State  of  Religion,  on  the  Continent  of  North  America,  in  which 
he  agitated  the  subject  of  an  American  episcopate,  appeared  in  1700-1701. 
Although  the  Society  was  not  definitely  established  till  June,  1701,  Bray  had 
some  time  earlier  begun  his  efforts  toward  organizing  it. 

^  Talbofs  first  appeal  was  sent  from  New  York  in  1702.  See  Hawkins, 
Missions  of  the  Church  of  England,  376. 


94       ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN-  AAT  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

have  seen  several  Counties,  Islands,  and  Provinces,  which  have 
hardly  an  orthodox  minister,  am'st  them,  which  might  have 
been  supply'd,  had  we  been  so  happy  as  to  see  a  Bishop  or 
Suffragan  Apud  Americanos."^  It  will  be  noticed  that  Talbot 
desired  a  bishop  for  purely  spiritual  purposes,  such  as  ordain- 
ing, confirming,  and  the  like  offices.  Though  it  is  not  certain 
just  how,  in  his  opinion,  a  bishop  would  be  supported,  it  would 
seem,  from  a  letter  written  to  his  colleague  Keith,  in  regard  to 
one  John  Livingstone's  purpose  to  go  to  England  to  seek  an 
episcopal  consecration,  that  he  regarded  a  contribution  of 
tenths  from  the  clergy  as  ample  means  for  a  bishop's  mainten- 
ance.^ But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  handful  of  ministers, 
most  of  them  depending  upon  a  stipend  from  the  Society,  could 
furnish  for  their  diocesan  **  a  provision  as  honorable  as  some 
in  Europe." 

Talbot  did  not  confine  his  efforts  to  writing;  in  1706  he 
went  to  England  to  press  his  cause  in  person.^  Evidently  he 
received  some  encouragement  there,  for  on  his  return  to  Amer- 
ica he  selected  a  house  for  a  bishop's  seat*  In  171 2  the 
Society  closed  the  bargain,  and  directed  that  the  residence  be 
prepared  for  habitation,^  an  action  which  is  explained  by  the 

^Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  Digest  of  the  Records,  11.  Prob- 
ably by  an  "orthodox  minister"  he  means  one  of  the  Church  of  England. 

2  October  20,  1705:  "Mr.  John  Livingston  designs,  it  seems,  to  go  for 
England  next  year ;  he  seems  to  be  the  fittest  person  that  America  affords 
for  the  ofifice  of  a  suffragan,  and  several  persons,  both  of  the  Laity  and  Clergy, 
have  wished  he  were  the  man ;  and  if  my  Lord  of  London  thought  fit  to 
authorize  him,  several  of  the  Clergy  both  of  this  Province  and  of  Maryland 
have  said  they  would  pay  their  tenths  unto  him,  as  my  Lord  of  London's  Vice- 
gerent, whereby  the  Bishop  of  America  might  have  as  honorable  provision  as 
some  in  Europe."     (Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  58.) 

3  Ibid.  59. 

*  Letter  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society,  June  30,  1709,  Ibid.  63. 

^  See  Evan  Evans  and  Talbot  to  the  Society,  December  4,  1712,  Ibid. 
65-66.  This  was  the  house  to  which  Hunter  alludes  in  his  letter  to  Swift 
(above,  p.  92,  and  note  3).  An  account  of  the  affair  may  be  found  in  the 
sermon  of  William  Fleetwood,  bishop  of  St.  Asaph's,  before  the  Society, 
February  16,  1710-11,  printed  in  the  Society's  Abstract,  1709-1710  (London, 
171 1 ),  pp.  22-28.  In  the  Abstract  for  171 3,  p.  44,  there  is  a  statement  that 
the  Society,  through  the  agency  of  Governor  Robert  Hunter,  has  obtained 
from  John  Tathouse  the  house  at  Burlington  for  ^600  sterling. 


EVAN-  EVANS'S  REPRESENTATION  TO    THE  SOCIETY.     95 

hopes  which  it  then  had  of  obtaining,  by  the  aid  of  Queen  Anne, 
some  sort  of  episcopal  establishment.  These  hopes  were  blasted 
by  the  queen's  death  in  171 5. 

Meantime,  Talbot's  endeavors  were  supplemented  by  those  of 
his  brother  missionaries,  acting  both  singly  and  collectively.  In 
1705,  for  example,  fourteen  clergymen  assembled  at  BurUngton, 
New  Jersey,'  and  sent  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  a  petition 
setting  forth  their  needs.^  Assigning,  in  addition  to  the  consid- 
erations ordinarily  urged,  such  as  the  need  of  some  one  to 
officiate  at  confirmations  and  ordinations,  several  reasons  of 
a  more  special  nature,  they  appeared  to  contemplate  an  estab- 
lishment of  a  kind  more  likely  to  arouse  opposition  among  the 
dissenters  than  that  usually  projected  by  the  missionaries  in  this 
period. 

Two  years  later,  however,  in  1707,  Evan  Evans,  in  a  letter 
entitled  "The  State  of  the  Church  in  Pennsylvania,  most 
humbly  offered  to  the  Venerable  Society  for  the  Propagation  of 
the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,"  brought  out  some  distinctively 
new  points.  His  main  reason  for  wanting  a  bishop  was  to  have 
an  officer  capable  of  deciding  in  the  disputes  between  clergymen  ; 
since  they,  standing  on  a  level  with  regard  to  authority,  could 
not  very  well  manage  such  things  for  themselves.  He  divides 
his  argument  into  three  main  heads.  Starting  with  the  general 
proposition,  "  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  ends  of  a  mission 
can  never  be  rightly  answered  without  establishing  the  discipline 

^ "  The  presence  and  assistance  of  a  Suffragan  Bishop  is  most  needful  to  , 
ordain  such  persons  as  are  fit  to  be  called  to  serve  in  the  sacred  ministry  of 
the  Church.  We  have  been  deprived  of  the  advantages  that  might  have  been 
received  of  some  Presbyterian  and  Independent  Ministers  that  formerly  were, 
and  of  others  that  are  still  willing  to  conform  and  receive  the  holy  character, 
for  want  of  a  Bishop  to  give  it.  The  baptized  want  to  be  confirmed.  The 
presence  is  necessary  in  the  councils  of  these  provinces  to  prevent  the  incon- 
veniences which  the  Church  labours  under  by  the  influences  which  seditious 
men's  counsels  have  upon  the  publick  administration  and  the  opposition  which 
they  make  to  the  good  inclinations  of  well  affected  persons  ;  he  is  wanted  not 
only  to  govern  and  direct  us  but  to  cover  us  from  the  malignant  effects  of 
those  misrepresentations  that  have  been  made  by  some  persons  empowered  to 
admonish  and  inform  against  us  who  indeed  want  admonition  themselves  " 
(Society's  Digest,  744,  citing  its  Journals,  Appendix  A,  508-513).  Cf. 
Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  Engla?id,  377-378. 


96     ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  in  those  parts," 
he  argues  as  follows  :  first,  that  a  bishop  is  needed  to  supply  and 
ordain  ministers,  for  only  a  resident  bishop  can  judge  of  the 
fitness  of  a  candidate  to  serve  in  a  particular  region,  he  only  can 
know  the  "  true  state  of  ecclesiastical  things  or  persons,"  and 
can  "best  see  into  all  the  secret  causes  and  springs  of  things  " ; 
secondly,  that  "  a  Bishop  is  absolutely  necessary  to  preside  over 
the  American  clergy,  and  oblige  them  to  do  their  duty  and  to 
live  in  peace  and  unity  with  one  another.  .  .  .  Wheresoever 
Presbytery  is  established,"  he  continues,  "  there  they  have  the 
face  and  appearance  of  an  Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  and  author- 
ity after  their  way  to  resort  to  upon  all  occasions.  But  our 
clergy  in  America  are  left  destitute  of  any  advantage  of  this 
kind,  and  are  exposed  to  the  mercy  of  their  very  often  unrea- 
sonable passions  and  appetites ;  which  are  by  many  degrees  the 
worst  masters  they  can  truckle  with."  Here,  and  in  one  place 
earlier  in  the  same  letter,  where  he  asserts  that  there  is  not  the 
least  shadow  of  authority  to  keep  the  clergy  within  bounds, 
Evans  plainly  disregards  the  fact  that  the  Bishop  of  London's 
authority  had  any  efficacy  in  the  colonies.  His  Lordship's 
authority  certainly  was  weak ;  but  Evans  may  have  exaggerated 
a  bit,  using  purposely  strong  expressions  to  add  emphasis  to  his 
argument. 

His  third  point  is  that  the  clergy  themselves  are  handicapped 
for  want  of  a  bishop,  since,  being  dependent  upon  the  laity  for 
support,^  they  cannot,  even  in  cases  of  the  grossest  irregularities 
of  living,  denounce  the  leaders  among  their  people  without  the 
aid  of  episcopal  sanction.  In  reference  to  a  possible  official 
censure  of  immoral  laymen,  he  says :  "  But  now  nothing  of  this 
kind  is  heard  of  or  attempted  there,  and  men  commit  adultery, 
polygamy,  incest,  and  a  thousand  other  crimes,  of  which  the 
minister  can  hardly  admonish  them  in  private,  without  manifest 
hazard  and  disadvantage  to  himself,  because  there  is  no  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction  established  in  those  parts,  and  though  there 
were,  there  are  no  laws  in  being,  which  make  the  inhabitants  of 
those  countries  liable  and  obnoxious  to  it.     No  statute  of  the 

^  This  was,  of  course,  not  true  in  the  case  of  the  missionaries  of  the 
Society. 


BISHOP  COMPTOM'S  OBSERVATION'S.  97 

28  H.  VIII. ;  no  writ  de  excommunicato  capiendo,  to  oblige 
spiritual  delinquents  to  submit  to  the  censures  of  the  Church 
for  the  good  of  their  own  souls."  What  Evans  here  says  is 
perfectly  true ;  but  the  crimes  which  he  enumerates  were  under 
the  competence  of  the  secular  courts,  and  could  be  handled 
much  more  safely  and  surely  by  those  bodies  than  by  any  eccle- 
siastical authorities.  Such  assertions  as  these  of  Evans  would, 
had  they  been  uttered  half  a  century  later,  have  raised  a  storm 
of  abuse  among  the  laity  not  only  of  the  Independent,  but  even 
the  Episcopal  churches.  This  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  one  of  the 
few  instances  in  which  a  petitioner  for  a  bishop  ventured  to  advo- 
cate strongly  the  disciplinary  side  of  the  office,  particularly  in  its 
relations  to  the  laity.  To  be  sure,  only  the  laymen  of  the  Church 
of  England  were  meant ;  but  they  were,  as  a  rule,  as  adverse  to 
ecclesiastical  oversight  in  matters  temporal,  both  public  and  pri- 
vate, as  the  members  of  any  other  religious  body.  Finally,  at 
the  close  of  his  other  arguments,  Evans  adds  that  a  bishop  is 
needed  for  the  exercise  of  the  office  of  confirmation.^ 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  in  the  same  year  in  which  Evans 
wrote  this  letter,  — indeed,  perhaps  because  of  the  letter,  —  the 
Bishop  of  London  drew  up  a  series  of  observations  concerning 
the  advisability  of  providing  a  suffragan  for  America.  Agree- 
ing with  the  Society's  missionaries,  he  thinks  that  a  bishop 
would  be  a  proper  remedy  for  the  disordered  condition  of  the 
Church  of  England  there.  But  what  sort  of  a  bishop  .-•  An 
absolute  one .''  Such  a  one  would,  he  thinks,  be  impracticable 
for  several  reasons,  of  which  the  chief  is  that  the  colonists  would 
not  suffer  such  control.^  The  cause  of  this  opposition,  however, 
he  ascribes  not  to  the  fear  of  a  politico-ecclesiastical  tyranny,  — 
the  time  was  hardly  ripe  for  that,  —  but  to  the  apprehension 
that  a  bishop  clothed  with  full  powers  would  exercise  too  close 

^Hazard,  Pennsylvania  Register.,  iii.  337-340  (May  30,  1829).  This  is  one 
of  a  series  of  articles  on  the  history  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  Pennsylvania, 
originally  printed  in  the  Episcopal  Magazine. 

-He  says  of  the  attempt  in  "K.  Charles  y"  2*'  time,"  that  "there  came  over 
Petitions  and  addresses  with  all  violence  imaginably."  Presumably  he  alludes 
to  the  attempt  made  in  1662  (see  above,  pp.  89,  90)  ;  but  there  seems  to  be 
no  record  of  any  such  resistance  as  the  bishop  alludes  to.  We  have  seen  the 
probable  causes  why  that  attempt  failed  (above,  p.  90,  notes). 

7 


98     ATTEMPTS   TO   OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

a  supervision  over  the  lives  and  morals  of  the  clergy  and  the 
laity,  which  were,  in  many  cases,  in  a  very  bad  condition.  For 
this  reason  his  lordship  advocates  a  suffragan,  a  functionary 
who  would  be  too  much  like  a  commissary,  to  whose  office  they 
were  already  accustomed,  to  excite  much  aversion.  Such  a 
suffragan,  having  the  necessary  Episcopal  orders,  could,  he 
argues,  perform  all  the  needed  offices,  such  as  confirmation, 
ordination,  and  consecration,  and  would  thus  have  all  the 
necessary  requisites  without  any  of  the  disadvantages.  The 
implication  seems  to  be  that  a  suffragan  might  be  tried  as  an 
experiment;  if  the  experiment  succeeded,  well  and  good,  and 
perhaps  later  an  absolute  bishop  might  be  substituted ;  if  it 
failed,  the  suffragan  might  be  quietly  withdrawn.  It  does  not 
appear  that  this  proposition  was  much  considered  at  the  time, 
although  afterward  many  of  the  petitioners  made  their  pleas 
for  a  suffragan  rather  than  for  an  absolute  bishop.^ 

All  the  applications  which  have  thus  far  been  considered 
came  from  the  middle  colonies  ;  but  later,  after  the  matter 
had  been  taken  up  by  the  Society  for  Propagating  the 
Gospel,  the  efforts  of  the  missionaries  of  the  middle  colonies 
began  to  be  reenforced  by  those  of  the  New  England  brethren, 
particularly  those  in  Boston,  the  only  place  in  Massachusetts 
where  the  Church  of  England  had  as  yet  gained  any  definite 
foothold.  The  first  New  England  petition,  dated  December  8, 
1713,2  came  from  the  ministers,  church  wardens,  and  vestry  of 
King's  Chapel.  Not  only  did  they  make  representation  to  the 
Society,  assuring  that  body  how  gladly  they  welcomed  its  efforts 
to  secure  a  bishop  for  them,  but  they  also  sent  a  "  Humble 
Address  to  the  Queen's   Most  Excellent  Majesty."^     All  evi- 

1  New  York  Documents^  v.  29.  The  whole  document  is  reprinted  below, 
Appendix  A,  No.  iii. 

2  For  the  text  of  the  representation,  see  Foote,  Annals  of  King's  Chapel, 
i.  224;  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections.,  ist  Series,  vii.  215. 

^  Massachusetts  Historical  Society.  Collections.,  ist  Series,  vii.  215-216.  These 
petitions  were  never  delivered,  having  been  in  some  way  intercepted.  They 
are  said  to  have  been  found  among  Sir  Charles  Hobby's  papers  by  Mr.  Mason, 
his  administrator,  and  to  have  been  sent  by  him  to  Boston.  The  members 
of  the  Episcopal  party  were  endeavoring  to  obtain  the  ascendancy  in  New 
England,  as  appears  from  a  letter  of  the  Reverend  Samuel  Myles,  in  which 


PETITIONS  FROM  THE  NORTHERN  COLONIES.  99 

dence  goes  to  show  that  these  representations  and  addresses 
owed  their  origin  to  Governor  Nicholson. ^  The  movement  for 
bishops  seems  to  have  been  fairly  general  at  this  time  ;  for 
there  are  records  of  simultaneous  petitions  from  New  York, 
New  England,  and  Rhode  Island  asking  for  bishops  for  the 
northern  colonies  as  a  measure  against  the  "  Whigs  and 
fanaticks  "  who  "swarme[d]  then  in  those  parts."  ^  Prominent 
members  of  the  episcopate  in  the  mother  country  were  in 
correspondence  with  some  of  the  leading  Independent  ministers 
in  New  England,  seeking  in  this  way  to  feel  the  temper  of  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  the  various  sects  that  would  probably  be 
hostile  to  such  an  innovation  as  the  introduction  of  bishops.^ 

he  writes,  under  date  February  17,  1713-14:  "I  am  humbly  of  opinion,  the 
church  here,  and  also  in  other  parts  of  this  province,  would  increase  much 
more  under  a  Governor  that  was  a  constant  communicant  thereof,  from  whom 
we  might  reasonably  exjDect  all  requisite  protection  and  encouragement" 
{Ibid.  216-217). 

1  See  a  letter  from  Nicholson  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  which  he 
says  that  "unless  a  Bishop  be  sent  in  a  short  time,  the  Church  of  England  will 
rather  diminish  than  increase  in  North  America"  (Hawkins,  Missions  of  the 
ChiDxh  of  England,  379,  citing  the  Society's  MS.  Letters,  94). 

-J.  Redknap  to  Sir  Charles  Hobby  and  Jonathan  Jekyll  (London,  April  27, 
1 7 14).  in  Foote,  Annals  of  King'' s  Chapel,  i.  226-227. 

2  Bishop  Kennett  to  Dr.  Benjamin  Colman,  September  15,  1713  :  "  It  is  our 
being  misinformed  and  misguided  in  Some  Ways,"  he  says,  "  that  increases 
our  Desires  of  having  Bishops  settled  in  those  foreign  Parts  committed  to  our 
Care ;  that  they  may  judge  better  of  Things  and  Persons  within  their  own 
view.  .  .  .  But  alas,  there  is  so  much  of  an  Ecclesiastical  and  of  a  Civil 
Nature  in  this  Affair,  and  such  a  Concurrency  reqtiired  here  at  Home  and 
Abroad,  that  what  Issue  it  may  come  to  we  are  yet  uncertain,  —  And  whether 
at  this  Juncture  we  should  make  a  fit  Choice  of  discreet  Men  for  this  Office ; 
I  dare  not  pretend  to  guess.  —  I  hope  your  Churches  would  not  he  jealous  of  it, 
they  being  out  of  our  Line,  and  therefore  beyond  the  Cognizance  of  any  Over- 
seers to  be  sent  from  hence.  What  Time  may  do,  with  the  Spirit  of  Knowledge 
and  Charity  to  make  the  English  in  America  all  of  one  Heart,  and  of  Way  of 
Discipline  and  Worship,  I  recommend  to  your  Prayers,  and  add  my  own " 
(Turell,  Life  of  Colman,  128).  "Which  needful  Provisions,"  he  says  in 
another  letter  to  the  same  person,  March  13,  17 16-17,  alluding  to  the  pro- 
posed establishment,  "  will  not  break  in  upon  your  national  Rites  and  Customs, 
at  least  no  other  Way  than  by  laying  a  Foundation  {we  will  hope,  2ivAyou  will 
agree)  for  the  Union  of  all  Protestants  in  some  fijture  Age,  when  Charity  and 
Peace  shall  prevail  above  Interest  and  Passion  "  {Ibid.  130). 


lOO     ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN-  AAT  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

So  much  for  the  movement  concerning  the  work  of  individ- 
uals and  groups  of  individuals  in  the  early  eighteenth  century. 
It  will  now  be  necessary  to  see  what  had  in  the  meantime 
been  accomplished  by  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel, 
to  which  most  of  the  petitions  for  a  suffragan  had  been  referred. 
As  early  as  1703  a  committee  of  the  Society  formulated  a  state- 
ment entitled  "The  Case  of  Suffragan  Bishops  briefly  pro- 
posed," which  was  referred  to  the  attorney  general  without 
result.^  This  was  the  first  in  a  series  of  steps  culminating  in 
a  plan  which  seemed  on  the  verge  of  success  when  the  death 
of  Queen  Anne,  who  had  finally  agreed  to  take  the  matter  in 
hand,  checked  its  progress.  The  following  memorial  will  serve 
as  a  sample  of  the  Society's  addresses  to  the  throne :  "  We 
cannot  but  take  this  opportunity  further  to  represent  to  your 
Majesty,  with  the  greatest  humility,  the  earnest  and  repeated 
desires,  not  only  of  the  Missionaries,  but  of  divers  other  consid- 
erable persons  that  are  in  communion  with  our  excellent  Church, 
to  have  a  Bishop  settled  in  your  American  plantations  (which 
we  humbly  conceive  to  be  very  useful  and  necessary  for  estab- 
Hshing  the  gospel  in  those  parts),  that  they  may  be  the  better 
united  among  themselves  than  at  present  they  are,  and  more 
able  to  withstand  the  designs  of  their  enemies ;  that  there  may 
be  Confirmations,  which,  in  their  present  state,  they  cannot 
have  the  benefit  of,  and  that  an  easy  and  speedy  care  may  be 
taken  of  all  the  other  affairs  of  the  Church,  which  is  much 
increased  in  those  parts,  and  to  which,  through  your  Majesty's 
gracious  protection  and  encouragement,  we  trust  that  yet  a 
greater   addition   will  daily   be   made."^     This   memorial   was 

1  This  case  refers  to  a  revival  of  suffragans  (statute  26  Henry  VIII.,  c.  13), 
and  asks  (i)  whether  the  bishops  suffragan  of  Colchester,  Dover,  Nottingham, 
and  Hull  might  not  be  used  for  foreign  parts ;  (2)  whether  archbishops  and 
bishops  would  incur  penalties  for  consecrating  bishops  with  no  more  than 
common  jurisdiction ;  (3)  whether  the  queen,  by  statute  Edward  VI.,  c.  2 
(for  the  election  of  bishops),  might  not  appoint  foreign  suffragans.  See  the 
Society's  Digest,  743-744.  citing  xt?,  Journal,  November  17-December  15,  1704, 
Appendix,  258 ;  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  139, 
note  3,  citing  the  Account  of  the  Society  published  in  1706. 

2  Hawkins,  Missiofts  of  the  Church  of  England,  377-378  ;  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  140. 


THE  EFFORTS  OF  THE  SOCIETY.  lOI 

reenforced  by  a  sermon  before  the  Society  in  171 2  by  Bishop 
Kennett,  who  urged  the  need  of  "  disciphne  and  Episcopal  gov- 
ernment "  to  be  "  there  settled  to  compleat  the  face  of  decency 
and  order."  Apparently  neither  of  these  pleas  gained  the 
desired  attention;  for,  March  2'j,  171 3,  a  petition  for  bishops, 
entitled  "A  Representation  to  be  laid  before  Her  Majesty,  for 
procuring  Bishops  and  Bishopricks  in  America,"  was  reported 
from  a  committee.  It  was  read,  amended,  and  ordered  to  be 
delivered  to  the  Archbishop  of  York,  with  instructions  that  it  be 
presented  to  the  queen  after  the  seal  of  the  Society  had  been 

-  affixed.^  Queen  Anne  finally  decided  to  grant  the  request  of 
the  Society ;  and  a  bill  was  drafted  and  about  to  be  introduced 
into  Parliament,  when  her  Majesty's  death  put  a  stop  to  further 
proceedings.^ 

Not  discouraged  by  this  set-back,  the  Society,  on  June  12, 
1 71 5,  sent  a  petition  to  the  new  king.  It  was  never  considered, 
however,  perhaps  (as  Hawkins  suggests)  because  of  the  advent 
to  power  of  Sir   Robert  Walpole  and  the  Whigs,  and  of  the 

'Tory  rising  in  1715.^  This  was  the  last  attempt  made  by 
the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  as  a  body,  to  induce 
the  crown  to  establish  bishops  in  America. 

After  this  the  missionaries  in  America  seem  to  have  been 
too  much  discouraged  to  send  many  more  petitions  for  some 
years  to  come,  although  there  is  record  that  a  few  were  sent 
from  time  to  time.  Chief  among  these  was  an  address,  dated 
June  2,  1718,  from  the  clergy  and  vestries  of  Christ  Church, 
Philadelphia,  and  St.  Anne's,  Burlington,  and  some  others. 
The  petitioners  based  their  plea  on  the  customary  grounds, 
such  as  the  need  of  some  one  to  consecrate  churches  and  to 
perform  the  offices  of  confirmation  and  ordination.  With  regard 
to  the  latter  function  they  said :  "  For  the  want  of  that  sacred 

1  See  the  Society's  Report,  1713,  in  Foote,  Annals  of  Kings  Chapel,  i.  222- 
223 ;  also  its  Abstract,  1713-1714,  pp.  27-28,  and  1714-1715,  pp.  52-54-  See 
also  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  England,  380;  Protestant  Episcopal 
Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  140-141. 

■^Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  141. 

3  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  England,  380-383,  citing  the  Society's 
MS.  Letters,  x.  28. 


102      ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

power  which  is  inherent  to  your  apostohck  [office]  the  vacancies 
which  daily  happen  in  our  ministry  cannot  be  supplied  for  a 
considerable  time  from  England,  whereby  many  congregations 
are  not  only  become  desolate,  and  the  light  of  the  gospel 
therein  extinguished,  but  great  encouragement  is  thereby  given 
to  sectaries  of  all  sorts  which  abound  and  increase  amongst  us, 
and,  some  of  them  pretending  to  what  they  call  the  power  of 
ordination,  the  country  is  filled  with  fanatic  teachers,  debauch- 
ing the  good  inclinations  of  many  poor  souls  who  are  left 
destitute  of  any  instruction  or  ministry."  ^  This  plea,  like  all 
those  made  by  the  Society  for  many  years  to  come,  obtained 
no  encouragement  from  the  authorities  in  England. 

The  majority  of  the  petitions  thus  far  considered  came  from 
the  missionaries  in  the  middle  colonies.  Soon,  however,  a  move- 
ment was  begun  in  New  England,  —  or  one  might  better  say 
in  Connecticut,  —  which  never  ceased  till  the  consecration  of 
Samuel  Seabury  as  Bishop  of  Connecticut  in  1784.  The  first 
step  was  taken  by  the  Reverend  George  Pigot,  who  had  come  to 
Connecticut  as  a  missionary  in  1722.  According  to  his  repre- 
sentation, "besides  the  deficiency  of  a  governor  in  the  Church, 
to  inspect  the  regular  lives  of  the  clergy,  to  ordain,  confirm, 
consecrate  churches,  and  the  like  .  .  .  there  .  .  .  [was],  also, 
a  sensible  want  of  this  superior  order,  as  a  sure  bulwark  against 
the  many  heresies  that  are  already  brooding  in  this  part  of 
the  world." ^  This  step  was  only  a  forerunner;  the  deter- 
mined effort  on  the  part  of  the  New  England  episcopacy  did 
not  make  itself  felt  until  the  passing  over  of  Cutler,  Johnson, 
Brown,  and  Wetmore  from  the  Presbyterian  to  the  Episcopal 
communion.  This  event  in  itself  had  a  great  influence  in 
strengthening  the  already  latent  apprehension  of  the  New 
Englanders  as  to  the  dangers  of  episcopacy ;  and  the  efforts 
which  the  new  converts  made  to  secure  the  settlement  of  native 
bishops  certainly  did  nothing  to  allay  the  apprehension.     In  a 

^  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  CJuirch  of  England,  384-385,  citing  the  Society's 
MS.  Letters,  xiv.  44 ;  Hazard,  Pennsylvania  Register,  iii.  382  (June  13,  1892). 
This  was  followed,  April,  1729,  by  another  petition  of  the  same  sort  (cf.  Ibid. 

383)- 

^  Beardsley,  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticid,  i.  50-51. 


GIBSON'S  INFLUENCE  SOLICITED. 


103 


later  chapter  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  follow  the  constantly- 
increasing  hostility  between  the  two  communions,  which  finally 
broke  into  a  controversy  that  was  only  ended  by  the  War  of 
Independence,  which  it  helped  to  promote. 

As  early  as  1723  Johnson  realized  and  commented  on  the 
need  of  bishops  resident  in  the  colonies  ;  and  accordino-  to  his 
biographer,  Chandler,^  he  succeeded  in  interesting  Bishop  Gib- 
son in  the  project,  particularly  after  the  rumor  that  Talbot  and 
Welton  had  received  Episcopal  consecration  from  the  non-juring 
bishops.2  The  evidence,  however,  is  hardly  sufficient  to  prove 
that  Gibson  took  any  decided  steps  to  further  the  plan,  although 
Johnson  in  one  letter  to  him  suggests  that  he  use  his  influence 
with  the  king  for  that  purpose.^ 

Dr.  Johnson  was  seconded  in  his  efforts  by  Dr.  Cutler  and  by 
the  other   New  England  clergy  both  singly  and  collectively.* 

1  Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson.,  38-39. 

^The  subject  of  non-juring  bishops  in  America  is  very  fully  treated  by  the 
Reverend  John  Fulton,  in  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  541  ff.  For 
another  account,  see  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i. 
passim. 

^  See  a  letter  from  Johnson  to  Gibson,  January  28,  1724,  in  Hawkins,  Mis- 
sions of  the  Church  of  England.  386-387.  Chandler,  in  his  Life  of  Sam7tel 
Johnson,  says  that  Bishop  Gibson  sought  to  interest  the  ministry  in  the 
project,  but  failed.  The  two  following  extracts  indicate  that  some  such 
proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  bishop  was  at  least  expected.  The  first  extract 
is  from  a  letter  of  Johnson  :  "  It  is  a  great  satisfaction  to  us,"  he  writes,  "  to 
understand  that  one  of  your  Lordship's  powerful  interest  and  influence  is  en- 
gaged in  so  good  a  work  as  that  of  sending  bishops  into  America,  and  that 
there  is  nothing  you  desire  more  or  would  be  at  greater  pains  to  compass. 
This  gives  us  the  greater  hopes  that  by  your  Lordship's  pious  endeavors,  under 
the  blessing  of  God  and  the  benign  influence  of  our  most  gracious  King,  it 
may  at  length  be  accomplished.  And  we  humbly  hope  that  the  address  and 
representation  of  the  state  of  religion  here  which  we  have  lately  presumed  to 
offer  may,  in  Your  Lordship's  hands,  be  of  some  service  in  this  affair.  I  pray 
God  give  it  success  "  (Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  56-57).  The  second  is  a 
letter  from  the  Reverend  J.  Berriman  to  Johnson,  dated  February  17,  1725,  in 
which  he  says:  "We  hear  of  two  Nonjuring  Bishops  (Dr.  Welton  for  one) 
who  are  gone  into  America;  and  it  is  said  the  Bishop  of  London  will  send  one 
more  of  a  different  stamp  as  an  antidote  against  them"  {Ibid.  55). 

^  See  Dr.  Cutler  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society,  January  4,  1723-24,  in 
Vtrry,  Historical  Collections,  ill.  (Massachusetts)  142-144;  \ii2iw\iins,  Missions 
of  the  Church  of  England,  387-388. 


104    ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN  AN"  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

'  The  subject  was  discussed  in  a  convention  held  at  Newport, 
Rhode  Island,  July  21,  1725,  and  in  another  at  Boston,  July  20, 
1727;  and  addresses  were  sent  to  the  king  and  to  the  Society 
for  Propagating  the  Gospel.^  The  congregations  of  King's 
Chapel  and  Christ  Church  also  continued  to  interest  them- 
selves in  the  project.  At  a  joint  meeting  of  the  ministers, 
wardens,  vestries,  and  congregations  of  these  two  churches,  held 
in  King's  Chapel,  August  30,  1727,  for  the  purpose  of  voting  an 
address  to  George  II.  on  the  death  of  his  father  and  his  own  acces- 
sion, the  following  resolution  was  adopted  :  "  That  an  Address 
be  made  to  his  Majesty  for  a  Bishop,  and  that  the  said  address  be 
sent  to  the  Bishop  of  London  within  twelve  months,  and  that 
the  persons  who  signed  the  address  to  his  Majesty  shall  likewise 
sign  the  address  for  a  Bishop,  unless  otherwise  determined  by 
the  Bishop  of  London."  This  was  signed  by  two  hundred  and 
nine  members.  It  had  been  the  intention  of  some  of  them 
to  send  an  address  at  once  to  the  king,  but  it  was  decided 
to  wait  and  get  the  mind  of  their  diocesan  upon  the  matter. 
They  also  took  care  to  make  it  plain  that  their  desire  to  have 
a  resident  bishop  arose  from    no   dissatisfaction  with    Bishop 

/    Gibson.^     A  "  Humble  Address  "  of  several  of  the  clergymen  of 

^  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  England,  387-388 ;  the  Society's 
Digest,  443  ;  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts)  175-178,  where 
the  whole  address  of  the  Rhode  Island  convention  to  Bishop  Gibson  is  given, 
together  with  its  letter  to  the  secretary.  Harris  and  Mossom  refused  to  attend 
the  convention,  for  reasons  which  they  gave  in  a  letter  to  their  diocesan, 
December  17,  1725  :  "It  arises  from  a  sense  of  humble  duty  and  modesty,"  said 
they  among  other  things,  "  that  we  do  not  expressly  pray  a  Bishop  may  be 
fix'  among  us,  because  you,  and  not  we,  are  the  most  competent  judge  of  what 
will  make  most  for  the  service  of  the  Church  in  general,  —  our  being  at  once 
cut  off  or  still  continued  a  part  of  the  See  of  London  "  (Foote,  Annals  of  King's 
Chapel,  i.  338-339;  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  200).  It  is  doubtful, 
however,  whether  this  consideration  influenced  Harris  so  much  as  other  rea- 
sons, chief  among  which  was  a  personal  quarrel  in  which  he  was  then  involved. 
For  an  account  of  the  affair,  in  which  John  Checkley  was  the  main  figure,  see 
Foote,  Annals,  i.  ch.  viii. ;  Perry,  Atnerican  Episcopal  Church,  i.  ch.  xv.,  and 
some  documents  in  his  Historical  Collections,  iii.  passim.  For  the  convention 
of  July  20,  1727,  see  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  224-227  ;  Foote,  Annals, 
i.  340. 

'■^  Foote,  Annals  of  King'^s  Chapel,  i.  351-352. 


THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  COLONIES.       105 

New  England,  dated  December  12,  1727  (probably  the  one  in 
question)  was  later  received  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  but  was  laid 
aside  with  the  indorsement,  "  The  Bishop  of  London  desired 
that  it  might  not  be  inserted  in  the  Gazette."  It  has  been  thought 
that  its  suppression  was  due  to  the  influence  of  Walpole.^ 

Meantime,  although,  as  we  have  seen,  the  southern  colonies 
were  in  general  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  bishops,  some 
steps  were  taken  in  Maryland  toward  the  attainment  of  that 
end.  Among  the  few  persons  in  that  colony  who  desired  a  na- 
tive episcopate  were  the  commissaries,  who  in  answer  to  Bishop 
Gibson's  queries  in  1724  suggested,  among  other  things,  the 
urgent  need  of  a  bishop.^  Several  other  indications  tend  to 
show  that  the  project  was  seriously  thought  of  at  this  time.^ 
Indeed,  in  1727  the  Bishop  of  London  sought  to  make  the  Rev- 
erend Mr.  Colbatch,  a  Maryland  clergyman,  his  suffragan ;  but 
the  courts  of  Maryland  checked  the  attempt  by  issuing  a  writ 
of  lion  exeat  regno.  This  put  an  end  to  any  attempts  to 
establish  a  bishop  in  the  southern  colonies,  for  the  next  forty 
years.* 

In  the  face  of  all  manner  of  discouragements,  Johnson,  in 
New  England,  continued  his  efforts  with  unflagging  energy. 
On  April  5,  1732,  after  a  conference  with  the  dissenters,  he  sub- 
mitted to  Bishop  Gibson  a  series  of  six  proposals,  the  gist  of 
which  is  as  follows :  since  the  attorney  and  solicitor  generals 
have  decided  that  the  establishment  does  not  extend  to  Amer- 

1  Palfrey,  New  England^  iv.  479,  citing  British  Colonial  Papers ;  cf.  Foote, 
Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  i.  353,  with  note  i.  Evidently  the  Bishop  was 
friendly  to  the  cause;  for  in  1738  we  find  him  "laboring  much,  but  in  vain, 
with  the  court  and  the  ministry,  and  endeavouring  to  induce  the  archbishop, 
who  had  credit  with  both,  to  join  him  in  trying  what  could  be  done  to  get  a 
bishop  sent  into  the  plantations."  His  effort  failed  because  Sir  Robert  Wal- 
pole  was  not  favorable.     See  Wilberforce,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  122. 

2  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  231-232;  Yl7m\is,  Ecclesias- 
tical Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  172. 

^  See  a  reference  to  the  subject  in  a  letter  from  Commissary  Wilkinson  to 
Bishop  Gibson,  September  9,  1724,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Mary- 
land) 244-246.  In  the  Fulham  MSS.  is  a  carefully  elaborated  plan  for 
settling  bishops  in  America  which  Dr.  Bray,  formerly  commissary  of  Maryland, 
drew  up  and  sent  to  Gibson,  October  28,  1723. 

^  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  ii.  (Maryland)  196. 


^ 


I06     ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN-  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

ica,  he  would  suggest  some  practical  proposals  for  an  episco- 
pate ;  he  ventures  to  do  this  for  the  reason  that  many  are  so 
destitute  that  they  will  submit  even  to  a  Church  of  England 
establishment ;  he  would  insist  only  upon  essentials  and  would 
advise  the  greatest  leniency  in  the  matter  of  non-essentials.  In 
spite  of  his  assurances,  some  of  the  statements  made  by  him 
would  very  readily  have  excited  suspicion  among  his  brethren  of 
the  Independent  persuasions.  Take,  for  example,  the  following 
suggestion :  "  Is  it  impossible  for  the  English  Dominions  in 
America  to  be  provided  for  with  one  or  two  Bishops,  and  those 
subject  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  as  Archbishop  of  the 
Plantations  abroad  .  .  .  and  is  it  impossible  that  such  a  provi- 
sion might  be  made  without  breaking  in  upon  the  interest  of 
the  governors  and  governments  as  they  now  stand  .-'  Though, 
indeed,  it  would  be  much  happier  for  the  Church,  especially 
unless  we  had  a  Bishop,  if  the  charters  were  taken  away ;  and 
most  people  begin  to  think,  since  they  have  got  into  such  a 
wretched,  mobbish  way  of  management,  that  it  would  be  best 
for  the  people  themselves."  ^  A  few  expressions  like  this  reach- 
ing the  ears  of  the  inhabitants  of  New  England  might  well  have 
made  them  tremble  for  the  continuance  not  only  of  their  ecclesi- 
astical, but  even  of  their  political,  independence.^ 

A  most  curious  notion  which  gained  currency  about  this  time 
was  that  the  establishment  of  bishops  in  America  would  lead 
to  the  independence  of  the  colony.  Moreover,  it  was  maintained 
that  this  consideration  influenced  the  English  government  to 
continue  in  its  refusal  to  take  any  steps  toward  the  furtherance 
of  the  plan.  There  seems  to  be  no  contemporary  evidence  for 
this  view  except  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Johnson  and  in  Arch- 
bishop Seeker's  refutation  of  the  notion.  Furthermore,  such  an 
idea  is  absurd  from  the  facts  of  the  case.  The  Episcopalians 
were,   at   least  before  the  outbreak  of   the   excitement  which 

^  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Documents,  i.  153-154. 

2  But  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  were  unable  to  prevail  with  the  officers  of 
state  ;  compare  the  following  sentence  from  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  to  John- 
son, March  9,  1735-36:  "My  own  interest,  to  be  sure,  is  inconsiderable;  but 
the  united  interest  of  the  Bishops  here  is  not  powerful  to  effect  so  reasonable 
and  right  a  thing  as  the  sending  of  some  Bishops  into  America  "  (Beardsley, 
Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut,  i.  101-102). 


THE  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE  AND   INDEPENDENCE.     10/ 

culminated  in  the  Revolution,  among  the  most  loyal  subjects 
of  the  English  government  in  the  American  colonies.  If  any 
danger  of  independence  was  to  be  feared  as  a  result  of  episcopal 
establishment,  it  would  come,  not  from  the  Episcopalians  with 
their  native  episcopate,  but  from  the  Independents,  roused  to 
opposition  by  the  apprehension  of  what  they  would  regard  as 
an  attempt  to  impose  upon  them  the  burden  of  the  Anglican 
ecclesiastical  system.  If  any  such  reason  as  that  noticed  above 
was  alleged  by  the  home  government  for  not  granting  an  episco- 
pate to  its  petitioners,  it  was  only  a  pretext  for  a  refusal  resting 
upon  quite  different  grounds. 

Yet  Dr.  Johnson  apparently  believed  that  this  notion  was 
really  fixed  in  the  minds  of  the  English  government ;  for  in  his 
letters  he  repeatedly  assured  his  diocesan  and  others  that  it 
was  unreasonable  to  conclude  that  the  attempt  to  obtain  bishops 
for  America  proceeded  from  a  desire  for  independence,  since, 
indeed,  the  reverse  was  true.^  Any  one  inclined  to  the  view 
supposed  to  be  held  by  the  English  government  would  have  felt 
the  untenability  of  any  such  idea  after  a  perusal  of  Johnson's 
letters  to  his  English  correspondents.  Take,  for  example,  one 
written  in  1742  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  which  he 
says :  "  An  English  Bishop  would  be  the  most  effectual  means 
to  secure  the  people  from  that  [the  Moravian]  and  every  other 
faction  and  delusion,  as  well  as  vastly  to  enlarge  the  Church, 
I  have  been  informed  that  the  chief  pretense  against  sending 
Bishops  has  been  an  apprehension  of  these  colonies  effecting 
an  independency  on  our  mother-country.  This  is  indeed  a  most 
groundless  apprehension ;  but  certainly  a  regular  Episcopacy, 
even  subordinate  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  would  be  so  far 
from  this  that  it  would  be  one  of  the  most  effectual  means  to 
secure  our  dependency." ^  Or  again:  "It  has  always  been  a 
fact,"  he  says,  "  &  is  obvious  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  that 
anti-Episcopal  are  of  course  anti-monarchical  principles.  So 
that  the  danger  of  our  effecting  Independency  can  never  come 
from  a  regular  Episcopacy,  but  would  naturally  flow  from  the 
want  of  it ;  —  from  that  turbulent  outrageous  spirit  which  en- 

^  See  letter  cited,  Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  94. 
^Beardsley,  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut,  i.  144. 


I08      ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

thusiasm  is  apt  to  inspire  men  with.  —  To  me  therefore  My 
Lord,  there  is  nothing  apparently  more  evident,  than  that  a 
regular  Episcopal  Settlement  would  be  so  far  from  promoting 
a  spirit  of  Independency,  that  it  would  be  the  most  effectual 
means  that  could  be  devised  to  secure  a  Dependence  on  our 
Mother  Country;  especially  at  this  Juncture  when  we  are  so 
puffed  up  with  our  late  success  at  Cape  Breton,  that  our 
Enthusiasts  are  almost  apt  to  think  themselves  omnipotent.  .  .  . 
But  considering  their  Temper  and  Spirit,  I  should  rather  think 
a  great  Reason  for  it,  as  a  necessary  means  to  check  their 
Impetuosity,  &  to  prevent  what  I  know  will  otherwise  be  the 
Effect  of  their  Present  Elevation  which  prompts  them  to  think 
that  they  having  so  much  merit,  may  persecute  and  tyrannize 
over  the  Church  here  as  much  as  they  please  &  none  will  say 
to  them  why  do  ye  so }  Instances  which  we  have  lately  felt  in 
this  Colony,  and  more  of  them  we  expect  every  day."  ^  Obvi- 
ously, opinions  such  as  these  were  calculated  to  stir  up  suspicions 
in  the  minds  of  the  anti-prelatical  New  Englanders,  and  were 
certain  forerunners  of  that  great  struggle  concerning  the  estab- 
lishment of  native  bishops  which  was  soon  to  come. 

Meantime,  what  was  going  on  in  England }  From  the  time 
of  their  failure  to  secure  the  attention  of  King  George  I.  and 
his  ministers,  the  members  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the 
Gospel  appear  to  have  done  very  little  to  further  their  plans 
for  the  introduction  of  native  bishops.  This  inaction  may 
have  been  due  to  their  despair  of  accomplishing  anything  in 
that  direction ;  or,  what  is  less  likely,  they  may  have  felt  that 
under  the  capable  administration  of  Bishop  Gibson,  the  clergy 
and  people  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  colonies  were 
being  sufficiently  cared  for.  At  all  events,  from  the  death  of 
Queen  Anne  until  about  1740  we  find  among  the  Society's 
papers,  whether  abstracts  or  sermons,  no  record  of  the  matter 
or  allusion  to  it.  It  was  on  February  20,  1740-41,  that  Thomas 
Seeker,  then  Bishop  of  Oxford,  took  occasion  to  reopen  the 
subject  in  a  sermon  which  he  preached  before  the  Society  at  its 
annual  meeting  in  that  year.     In  the  opinion  of  at  least  one 

'^  Fulham  MSS.  From  a  letter  to  Bishop  Gibson,  November  25,  1725,  on 
hearing  that  he  was  again  making  an  effort  to  secure  an  American  episcopate. 


SECKER'S  SERMON  BEFORE  THE  SOCIETY.  109 

contemporary,  this  sermon  was  extremely  significant.^  The 
bishop's  main  arguments  are  the  same  as  those  used  by  all  the 
petitioners  in  favor  of  an  American  episcopate.  He  also  con- 
siders the  supposed  fear  of  the  English  government,  and  seeks 
to  allay  it  quite  after  the  fashion  of  Johnson.^ 

Seeker  was  answered  by  the  Reverend  Andrew  Eliot,  in  a 
pamphlet  entitled  Remarks  upon  the  Bishop  of  Oxford's  Sermon. 
Eliot  expresses  the  fear  that  if  bishops  were  introduced,  they 
would  have  to  be  supported  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  colonists, 
by  means  of  a  tax  levied  by  the  provincial  assemblies  ;  faiHng 
this,  the  influence  of  the  English  episcopate  would  be  brought 
to  bear  to  obtain  an  act  of  Parliament  to  secure  a  general  impo- 
sition, in  which  case  there  could  be  no  exemption,  since  the 
establishment  once  acknowledged  would  perforce  extend  to  all 
the  colonies.  "We  have  been  told,"  continues  Eliot,  "that 
'when  any  part  of  the  English  nation  spread  abroad  into  the 
colonies,  as  they  continued  a  part  of  the  nation,  the  law  obliged 
them  equally  to  the  Church  of  England  and  to  the  Christian 
religion.'  "  ^  He  rightly  argues  that,  if  such  be  the  case,  and  if 
bishops  be  introduced,  it  would  be  unjust  and  impolitic  to  exempt 
New  England  from  the  support  of  an  establishment  which,  if 
admitted  to  extend  to  one  of  the  colonies,  must  extend  to  all  of 

1  One  who  signs  himself  "  A  Man  of  Old  England ""  says :  "  From  the 
Sermon  he  preached  February  20,  1741,  it  appears,  the  Bishop  of  Oxford, 
Dr.  Seeker  furnished  the  disclaimers  against  the  North  American  Colonies 
with  the  root  ideas  of  deforming  and  episcopising  them  "  {Londoti  Chronicle, 
August  18,  1768).  This  statement  is  overdrawn;  but  certainly  Seeker  did 
much  to  revive  in  England  an  interest  in  the  subject  which  had  been  on  the 
wane  for  twenty  years  or  more. 

^ "  Nor  would  such  an  establishment,'"  says  Seeker,  "  encroach  at  all  on 
the  Present  rights  of  the  Civil  Government  in  our  Colonies  or  bring  their 
dependence  to  any  degree  of  that  Danger,  which  some  persons  profess  to 
apprehend  so  strongly  on  this  Occasion,  who  would  make  no  manner  of 
scruple  about  doing  other  Things  much  more  likely  to  destroy  it ;  who  are 
not  terrified  in  the  least  that  such  numbers  there  reject  the  Episcopal  Order 
entirely ;  nor  would  perhaps  be  greatly  alarmed,  were  there  ever  so  many  to 
reject  Religion  itself:  though  evidently  in  Proportion  as  either  is  thrown  off, 
all  Dependence  produced  by  it  ceases  of  course"  (the  Soc\t\.y''s  Abstract,  1741, 
pp.  27-29). 

^Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  2d  Series,  ii.  190-216. 


no     ATTEMPTS  TO   OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

them,  and  must  come  from  a  bishop  whose  jurisdiction  would 
include  them  all.  Such  a  partiality  could  not  but  excite  jealousy 
in  all  the  unexempted  colonies.  The  force  of  this  argument  is 
evident  from  the  known  antipathy  to  episcopal  control  even  in 
the  colonies  where  the  Church  of  England  was  established  by 
provincial  legislation. 

Although  Eliot  is  a  bit  unjust  in  his  suspicion  of  the  motives 
of  all  those  who  had  hitherto  lent  their  aid  to  the  cause  of  the 
American  episcopate,  yet  his  fear  of  what  might  come  to  pass 
in  case  the  proposed  estabHshment  were  once  attained  was  a 
perfectly  natural  one.  It  was  quite  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
the  bishops,  once  established,  would  hardly  be  content  to  confine 
themselves  to  purely  spiritual  affairs,  and  to  remain  deprived  of 
all  the  accompaniments  of  office  which  their  episcopal  brethren 
in  England  enjoyed.  Moreover,  it  would  be  most  certain  that 
the  English  bishops  would  support  their  claims,  for  fear  of  offer- 
ing to  the  dissenters  at  home  an  example  of  an  episcopate  exist- 
ing without  temporal  power  or  property.  But  even  if  this  were 
not  so,  even  if  the  bishops  on  both  sides  of  the  water  would  have 
been  perfectly  content  with  a  purely  spiritual  episcopate,  the 
scheme  would  still  have  been  impracticable  ;  for  under  an  estab- 
lishment of  this  sort  the  bishops  would  have  had  no  more  power 
to  enforce  their  discipline  than  the  commissaries  had ;  and  the 
latter,  as  was  admitted  on  all  sides,  had  lamentably  failed  to 
answer  the  needs  of  their  office.  Although  certain  expressions 
of  Johnson,  Seeker,  and  others  could  hardly  have  been  reassur- 
ing to  the  minds  of  those  who  stood  for  personal  liberty  and 
independence  in  the  administration  of  their  religious  and  politi- 
cal affairs,  still,  without  questioning  the  motives  of  earnest  mis- 
sionaries, filled  with  a  laudable  ambition  for  the  extension  of 
that  form  of  religious  worship  which  to  their  minds  best 
answered  the  spiritual  needs  of  mankind,  one  can  see  that  the 
thing  which  they  desired  could  not  but  have  led  to  a  further 
tightening  upon  the  colonists  of  that  governmental  system  from 
which  they  were  gradually  coming  to  extricate  themselves. 

Probably  to  further  the  interest  which  Seeker  sought  to  revive, 
Bishop  Gibson,  in  1745,  shortly  before  his  death,  offered  the  king 
and  council  ^^looo  toward  the  support  of  a  bishop,  in  case  one 


BEQUESTS  FOR  AN  AMERICAN-  EPISCOPATE.         in 

should  be  sent  over  in  his  time.^  This  was  one  of  several  gifts 
which  from  time  to  time  during  the  century  had  been  made  in 
aid  of  the  cause.  As  early  as  171 5  Archbishop  Tennison  left 
;2^iooo  for  the  maintenance  of  such  bishop  or  bishops  as  might 
be  sent  to  America.^  In  the  same  year  a  like  sum  was  be- 
queathed to  the  Society  by  an  unknown  benefactor.  These 
gifts  were  followed  in  1720  and  1741  by  two  bequests  of  ^5CK) 
from  Dugald  Campbell,  Esq.,  and  Lady  Elizabeth  Hastings 
respectively.^  Although  these  contributions  show  that  there 
were,  among  the  English  clergy  and  laity,  some  who  were  will- 
ing to  aid  the  project  with  their  financial  support,  yet  the  sum 
total  of  them  all  would  hardly  have  been  sufficient  to  maintain 
even  one  bishop. 

Looking  back  over  the  ground  covered  by  this  chapter,  we 
may  outhne  its  broader  features  as  follows :  Laud,  apparently 
as  a  step  in  the  further  development  of  his  plan  of  extending 
the  establishment  to  the  American  colonies,  sought  to  settle  a 
bishop  in  New  England,  but  was  prevented  by  a  sudden  turn  of 
political  affairs  at  home.  During  the  Restoration  period  the 
English  government  made  one  or  two  abortive  attempts  with 
the  same  end  in  view.  After  the  foundation  of  the  Society 
for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  its  missionaries  took  the  matter 
earnestly  in  hand  ;  but  they  struggled  in  vain  to  enHst  the  effec- 
tive cooperation  of  the  English  government  in  their  cause.  The 
early  movement  for  bishops  was,  at  least  in  motive,  void  of  all 
political  connection,  and  was  carried  on  almost  exclusively  from 
the  northern  and  middle  colonies,  where  the  church  was  not  es- 
tablished.* After  the  conversion  of  Cutler,  Johnson,  and  their 
colleagues,  the  subject  began  to  be  more  warmly  and  persist- 
ently agitated   than    ever   before,  and   a   political   significance 

^  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  139.  note. 

2  The  interest  on  this  bequest  was  later  given  to  Talbot,  as  the  oldest  of 
the  colonial  missionaries ;  for,  according  to  the  will,  such  provision  was  to  be 
made  of  the  income  until  bishops  should  be  introduced  (^Ibid.  79-80). 

^  See  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  E?igland,  383,  386 ;  Protestant 
Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  79-80  ;  and  Seeker's  Sermon,  in  the 
Society's  Abstract,  1741,  pp.  27-29. 

*  The  case  of  Maryland  (see  above,  p.  105)  can  hardly  affect  this  generali- 
zation. 


112      ATTEMPTS   TO    OBTAIN  AN  AMERICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

gradually  crept  into  the  discussions,  particularly  in  the  utterances 
of  Samuel  Johnson,  and  of  Bishop  Seeker,  who  came  to  his  aid 
in  1 741.  These  two  were,  before  many  years,  to  be  joined  by 
a  powerful  ally  in  the  person  of  Thomas  Sherlock,  who  suc- 
ceeded to  the  see  of  London  in  1748.  The  course  of  events 
during  the  period  of  his  administration  will  now  be  considered. 


CHAPTER   V. 

EXPIRATION    OF    THE    BISHOP    OF    LONDON'S    COMMISSION: 
SHERLOCK'S   POLICY,    1748-1761. 

Thomas  Sherlock,  who  succeeded  Edmund  Gibson  in  1748 
and  held  the  see  till  his  death  in  1761,  we  have  already  come  to 
know  as  a  severe  critic  of  the  scope  of  the  jurisdictionary  powers 
of  the  Bishop  of  London  over  the  American  plantations.  He 
was  the  inaugurator  of  a  new  poHcy,  which  consisted  in  with- 
holding the  ministrations  of  EngUsh  bishops  from  the  Episco- 
palians in  the  colonies  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  them  to  demand 

/  an  episcopate  of  their  own.  In  spite  of  his  protestations  to  the 
contrary,  there  is  good  ground  for  believing  that  his  action  was 
influenced  by  political  motives ;  but  in  justice  to  him  it  should 
be  said  that  he  probably  had  no  intention  of  deliberately  seeking 
to  force  upon  the  colonies  ecclesiastical  superiors,  with  accom- 
panying civil  powers  which  would  encroach  upon  the  indepen- 

.  dence  which  they  had  so  long  enjoyed.  More  likely  he  intended, 
by  uniting  the  separate  provinces  under  resident  spiritual  heads, 
to  set  a  precedent  for  a  political  union  which  would  gradually 
become  more  and  more  intertwined  with  the  English  church  and 
state  system.  This  was  certainly  the  notion  of  many  of  his 
supporters  on  both  sides  of  the  water,  some  of  whom  went  so 
far  as  to  assert  in  after  years  that,  had  a  colonial  episcopate 
been   established,  the    Revolution    might   have   been  averted.^ 

^  See  Hawkins,  Missiotts  of  the  Church  of  Etigland,  ch.  xvii.  Compare  a 
letter  from  Chandler  to  the  Society,  January  15,  1766,  in  which,  after  speaking 
of  the  political  situation  that  followed  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  of 
what  he  regards  as  the  excesses  of  his  countrymen,  he  says:  "And  yet  this 
apology  they  are  entitled  to,  y'  the  government  has  not  taken  much  pains  to 
instruct  them  better.  If  y"  Interest  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America  had 
been  made  a  National  Concern  from  the  beginning,  by  this  time  a  general 
submission  in  y°  Colonies  to  y°  Mother  Country  in  everything  not  sinful, 
might  have  been  expected,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  for  conscience'  sake.  And 
who  can  be  certain  but  y"  present  rebellious  disposition  of  y°  Colonies  is  not 

8 


114  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

Whether  we  attach  any  weight  to  this  theory  or  not,  the  fact 
is  indisputable  that,  in  the  years  from  1750  onward,  as  the 
chasm  between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country  widened 
more  and  more,  the  estabhshment  of  an  American  episcopate 
was  frequently  suggested  as  an  expedient  for  bridging  it  over. 

Sherlock,  whatever  may  have  been  the  motives  which  actu- 
ated him,  began  his  agitation  as  early  as  the  first  year  of  his 
accession,  when  he  wrote  to  Edward  Weston  from  Wallington 
on  September  9,  1748  :  "The  business  of  the  diocese,  and  of  the 
plantations  (w'*  last  article  is  immense,  and  to  be  carryed  on 
by  foreign  correspondence)  sits  heavy  upon  me."  ^  Nor  did  he 
confine  himself  to  mere  expostulation ;  for,  as  we  learn  from  a 
letter  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  dated  February  19,  1759,  he  went 
to  the  king  soon  after  he  became  Bishop  of  London,  and  laid 
before  his  Majesty  the  state  of  religion  in  the  colonies  and  the 
need  of  a  resident  bishop  there.  The  king  consented  to  allow 
him  to  refer  the  matter  to  his  ministers.  After  a  number  of 
futile  attempts  to  obtain  an  interview  with  them,  Sherlock  again 
applied  to  the  king,  who  gave  his  sanction  to  the  calling  of  a 
meeting  in  Newcastle  House,  at  which,  however,  nothing  was 
done ;  and  finally  the  bishop  brought  the  matter  before  the 
king  in  council,  with  a  similar  result.^ 

intended  by  Providence  as  a  punishment  for  that  Neglect  ?  Indeed,  many 
wise  and  good  persons,  at  home,  have  had  y^  Cause  of  Religion  and  y'  Church 
here  sincerely  at  heart,  and  y'  Nation,  whether  sensible  of  it  or  not,  is  under 
great  obligations  to  that  Worthy  Society,  who  by  their  indefatigable  endeavors 
to  propagate  the  Gospel  and  assist  the  Church,  have,  at  the  same  time,  and 
thereby,  secured  to  y'  State,  as  far  as  their  influence  could  be  extended, 
y°  Loyalty  and  Fidelity  of  her  American  Children"  (A.  H.  Hoyt,  Thomas 
Bradbury  Chandler,  in  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register^ 
xxvii.  233,  citing  S.  A.  Clark,  History  of  St.  John'' s  Church,  iio-i  13,  where 
the  whole  letter  is  given). 

1  Royal  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  Teitth  Report,  Appendix  i.  32c. 

-  Thus  Sherlock  made  in  all  three  applications  to  the  government  (cf. 
North  Carolina  Records,  vi.  10-13).  for  his  own  account  of  the  first  stages 
of  the  proceedings,  see  his  letter  of  1749  to  Dr.  Johnson  (Hawkins,  Missions 
of  the  Church  of  England,  389-390,  citing  Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson,  Appendix, 
131-132),  and  his  letter  of  May  11,  1751,  to  Dr.  Doddridge  (Hawkins,  Missions, 
391-392,  citing  Doddridge's  Correspondence  and  Diary,  v.  201  ;  Perry,  His- 
torical Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  371-374,  citing  Fiilha7n  MSS.).     His  final 


SPENCER'S  MISSION  TO   THE   COLONIES.  115 

Such  is  a  bald  outline  of  Sherlock's  early  movements.  It 
will  now  be  necessary  to  go  into  the  question  somewhat  more 
in  detail,  in  order  to  discover  just  what  springs  he  set  in  motion 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose.  His  activity  in  colonial 
questions  began  to  attract  attention  very  early ;  indeed,  even  in 
the  first  year  of  his  translation  there  were  rumors  that  bishops 
might  soon  be  expected  in  America.^  The  plan  seemed  'so 
certain  of  execution  and  so  much  to  be  feared  in  certain 
quarters,  that  in  1749  a  deputation  in  England  appointed  a 
committee  of  two  to  wait  upon  those  nearest  in  the  counsels 
of  the  king,  and  to  seek  to  convince  them  that  such  an  estab- 
lishment as  that  contemplated  "  would  be  very  disagreeable  to 
many  of  our  friends  in  these  parts  and  highly  Prejudicial  to 
the  Interests  of  Several  of  the  Colonies."  ^  This  intervention 
was  well  received  and  gratefully  acknowledged  abroad,  the 
Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives  returning  thanks  to 
the  committee  in  a  letter  signed  by  its  speaker.  In  1750  this 
committee  renewed  its  activities,  and  it  was  perhaps  to  some 
extent  owing  to  its  efforts  that  the  design  of  Sherlock  was 
frustrated. 

Simultaneously  with  his  action  in  England,  Sherlock  had 
incited  a  similar  movement  in  the  colonies.  Shortly  before  he 
presented  his  "  Considerations  "  to  the  king,  he  sent  an  agent, 
one  A.  Spencer,  to  America  to  feel  the  pulse  of  the  colonists  on 

application  consisted  in  submitting  to  the  council  an  elaborate  memorial, 
entitled  '•  Considerations  relating  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Government  in  Amer- 
ica," which  he  had  drawn  up  February  21,  1750.  It  was  first  printed  in  the 
appendix  to  Chandler's  Eree  Exainiiiation  of  Seeker's  Letter  to  Walpole,  from 
a  transcription  by  Dr.  William  Smith,  provost  of  the  College  of  Philadelphia, 
made  from  the  original  shown  to  him  by  "  a  great  and  excellent  Prelate  "  (see 
editorial  note  to  appendix  of  the  Free  Examination,  103)-  It  is  reprinted 
in  New  York  Documents,  vii.  360-369,  from  Plantations  General  Entries 
(Board  of  Trade),  xvi.  9.  Cf.  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Col- 
lections, i.  145,  with  note,  citing  a  letter  from  Sherlock  to  Johnson  of  Septem- 
ber 19,  1750. 

1  See  an  abstract  of  a  letter  from  the  Reverend  Clement  Hall  of  North 
Carolina  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society,  1748,  in  Perry,  American  Episcopal 
Church,  i.  406;  also  another  letter,  September  11,  1749,  North  Carolina 
Records,  iv.  924. 

^FtdhamMSS. 


Il6  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

the  subject  of  the  proposed  establishment.  According  to  his 
instructions,  Spencer  talked  with  several  merchants  and  other 
prominent  men  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia.  He  found  that 
their  chief  objection  against  such  an  establishment  was  the 
fear  that  it  might  infringe  on  the  privileges  of  the  people  and 
the  rights  of  the  proprietaries.  In  answer  to  this  objection, 
the  agent  pointed  out  that  the  proposed  suffragan,  without 
having  any  more  power  over  the  laity  than  that  hitherto  en- 
joyed by  the  commissaries,  would  have  certain  necessary  advan- 
tages, such  as  the  ability  to  choose  suitable  candidates  for  the 
ministry  and  to  exercise  an  oversight  over  them.  After  this 
explanation,  most  of  those  interviewed  declared,  according  to 
Spencer,  that,  if  the  case  were  as  represented,  they  would 
rather  concur  in  the  plan  than  oppose  it.^  In  reading  Spencer's 
report,  however,  we  must  make  some  allowance  for  the  enthu- 
siasm of  an  agent  seeking  further  employment,  and  must  remem- 
ber that  the  difficulty  was  in  convincing  the  objectors  that  the 
plan  was  as  represented. 

In  England  Sherlock  continued  his  exertions  for  the  advance- 
ment of  his  cause.  On  February  21,  1749-50,  he  drew  up  his 
"  Considerations  relating  to  Ecclesiastical  Government  in  his 
Majesty's  Dominions  in  America ";  ^  but  some  months  previ- 
ously he  had  entered  into  correspondence  with  the  chief  officers 
of  state  on  this  subject.^  Perhaps  a  short  examination  of  some 
of  the  letters  which  passed  back  and  forth  will  give  the  best 

^Spencer  to  Sherlock,  June  12,  1749,  Fiilham  MSS. 

2  In  his  "  Considerations  "  Sherlock  emphasizes  the  need  for  an  American 
Episcopate,  and  also  seeks  to  refute  the  objections  which  might  be  urged 
against  the  plan.  Chandler  {Free  Examination.,  3,  note  3)  says  that  the 
"Considerations"  were  read  in  the  council  on  February  21  ;  but  this  is  an 
error.  They  were  drawn  about  that  date,  but  were  not  submitted  to  the  king 
until  April  11  (see  a  transcription  on  the  back  of  a  manuscript  at  Fulham). 
Chandler's  error  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  document,  though  indorsed 
February  21,  was  before  its  final  presentation  submitted  by  Sherlock  to 
some  of  the  members  of  the  government  for  their  opinions  upon  it.  In  a 
letter  to  Newcastle,  March  23,  he  says  that  he  "  intends  "  to  submit  it  to  the 
council. 

^  This  correspondence,  which  I  have  extracted  from  the  original  letters 
among  the  Newcastle  Papers  in  the  British  Museum,  will  be  found  below  in 
AjDpendix  A,  No.  xi. 


SHERLOCK'S  CORRESPONDENCE   WITH  NEWCASTLE.      117 

insight  into  the  opinions  of  the  two  parties  concerned.  On 
September  3,  1749,  Sherlock,  evidently  angry,  or  at  least  dis- 
appointed, at  the  indifference  with  which  his  proposals  had  been 
received,  wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  expressing  his  un- 
willingness to  take  upon  himself  the  burden  which  the  episcopal 
oversight  of  the  plantations  would  involve,  and  asked  leave  to 
confine  himself  to  his  "  proper  diocese  of  London."  ^  The 
latter  statement,  and  the  implied  threat  which  it  conveyed,  had 
the  effect  of  nettling  Newcastle,  who  answered  rather  sharply 
that  "  the  appointing  Bishops,  in  the  West  Indies,  was  a  grave 
and  national  consideration ;  had  long  been  under  the  Delibera- 
tion of  great  and  wise  men ;  and  was,  by  them,  laid  aside ;  ^ 
and  ought  not  to  be  resumed,  for  personal  considerations ;  or 
at  all  to  be  looked  upon  in  that  Light."  ^  Sherlock,  in  his 
reply,  while  admitting  that  his  colonial  charge  was  burden- 
some to  him,  nevertheless  repudiated  the  thought  that  so  im- 
portant an  affair  could  be  settled  on  purely  personal  grounds. 
He  insisted  that  the  burden  and  expense  of  the  jurisdiction 
beyond  the  seas  belonged  no  more  to  the  bishopric  of  London 
than  to  any  of  the  other  dioceses,  and  sought  to  prove  that  the 
shifting  of  the  authority  would  not  only  benefit  the  see  of 
London,  but  would  be  of  inestimable  service  to  the  cause  of 
the  Episcopalians  in  America.* 

^Newcastle  Papers.,  Home  Series,  32719,  f.  97. 

2  Thus,  according  to  Newcastle,  the  previous  plans  had  received  the  serious 
consideration  of  the  officers  of  state  in  the  days  of  Sherlock's  predecessor. 
Compare,  however,  the  following  passage  :  "  The  late  Bishop  Gibson  was  fond 
of  the  project  of  sending  bishops  to  our  plantations.  The  ministry  of  those 
days  suffered  him  to  play  with  his  project  till  he  had  modelled  it  to  his  own 
liking ;  they  then  exposed  the  pernicious  nature  of  it  and  left  both  the  project 
and  the  projector  to  the  contempt  and  derision  of  all  wise  and  good  men  " 
{London  Chronicle,  January  17, 1764).  This  is  an  example  of  contemporaneous 
newspaper  exaggeration. 

3  Newcastle  to  Sherlock,  September  5,  1749,  Newcastle  Papers,  Home 
Series,  32719,  f.  105. 

■*  "'I  reckoned  (perhaps  misreckoned),"  he  says,  "that  I  was  proposing  a 
scheme  for  the  piiblick  service,  to  enable  not  only  myself  but  every  Bp.  of 
London  to  execute  with  some  tolerable  degree  of  care  the  extensive  commis- 
sion he  is  to  have  in  his  Majesties  foreign  dominions,  in  the  due  of  w'''^,  the 
King's  Honour  is  concerned ;  and  on  w^^  the  Religion  of  the  Country,  the 


Il8  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

Sherlock's  next  step,  as  has  been  said,  was  to  draw  up  his 
"  Considerations  " ;  these  he  sent  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  on 
March  23,  1749-50,  together  with  a  letter  giving  some  account 
of  his  plans.  He  informs  his  correspondent  that  he  intends  to 
lay  his  representation  before  the  king  in  council ;  that  he  has 
already  submitted  it  to  the  lord  chancellor,  who,  while  finding 
"  many  difficulties  as  to  the  main  point,"  admitted  that  there  was 
nothing  in  the  address  to  give  offence.  Sherlock  hopes  that, 
even  should  the  king  not  agree  with  his  plans,  his  representa- 
tion may  at  least  receive  some  consideration ;  he  is  willing  to 
put  himself  altogether  out  of  the  case,  although  he  wishes  for 
many  reasons  that  he  may  succeed  in  his  undertaking.^  Two 
days  later,  on  March  25,  Newcastle  replied  to  this  communi- 
cation. Though  he  expresses  his  agreement  with  the  lord 
chancellor  that  the  representation  contains  nothing  which  can 
offend,  yet  he  is  reluctant  to  lend  his  encouragement  to  the 
scheme.  He  strongly  advises  the  renewal  of  the  Gibson  patent, 
suggesting  that  if  it  is  defective  in  any  way  it  may  be  extended. 
While  professing  the  greatest  unfitness  to  pass  judgment  on 
the  merits  of  the  question,  he  nevertheless  places  himself  ten- 
tatively on  the  side  of  those  who  have  hitherto  regarded  an 
estabhshment  of  American  bishops  as  impracticable.  Finally,  he 
expresses  a  hope  that,  before  presenting  the  scheme  to  the  king 
in  council,  his  Lordship  will  at  least  discuss  it  with  his  Majesty's 
principal  servants.^  But  Sherlock  was  determined  to  press  matters 
in  the  teeth  of  all  advice,  and  submitted  his  representation  at  a 
meeting  of  the  council  on  April  11.  Owing,  however,  to  the  king's 
departure  for  Hanover,  consideration  of  it  was  postponed. 

But  the  subject  was  not  dropped.  On  May  29,  Horatio 
Walpole,  brother  of  Sir  Robert,  and  a  member  of  the  Privy 
Council,  wrote  to    Sherlock   for   the   facts   of   the   case,^  and 

prosperity  of  the  Ch.  of  England;  always  esteemed  the  Bulwark  ag^*  Popery; 
the  members  whereof  are  the  only  Set  of  Xtians  in  the  King's  dominions  who 
own  the  Supremacy  of  the  Crown,  doe  greatly  depend  "  (Sherlock  to  New- 
castle, September  7,  1749,  Newcastle  Papers,  Home  Series,  f.  113). 

'^  Ibid.  32720,  f.  156. 

•^Ibid.  f.  160. 

^  He  was  probably  not  present  at  the  council  meeting  at  which  the  memo- 
rial was  read. 


HORATIO    WALPOLE'S  LETTER   TO  SHERLOCK.         lig 

suggesting  such  objections  to  the  project  as  occurred  to  him.^ 
Sherlock  probably  made  no  other  reply  than  to  send  him  a  copy 
of  his  "  Considerations."  2  Bishop  Seeker,  however,  on  Janu- 
ary 9,  1750-51,  wrote  an  elaborate  reply,  which  was  published 
after  his  death  in  1769.  This  will  be  considered  later.  Now 
it  may  be  well  to  give  a  short  survey  of  the  principal  points 
of  Walpole's  letter.  Refusing  to  admit  that  the  colonies  in 
general  are  desirous  to  have  native  bishops  established  in  their 
midst,  he  goes  on  to  show,  in  support  of  his  position,  that  not 
only  have  they  never  hinted  to  the  English  officers  of  state  any 
desire  for  such  an  establishment,  but  they  have  vested  those 
powers  requiring  the  oversight  of  a  resident  bishop  in  other 
hands,  and  have,  in  many  cases,  passed  acts  of  assembly  against 
ecclesiastical  laws  and  jurisdictions  for  enforcing  or  establish- 
ing fines  and  other  forms  of  punishment.  He  admits  that  they 
have  never  complained  of  the  government  by  commissaries,  but 
thinks  that  this  fact  argues  rather  that  they  are  content  with 
that  system  than  that  they  desire  a  further  extension  of  the 
exercise  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  at  the  hands  of  a  bishop, 
particularly  since  they  have  never  objected  to  the  commis- 
saries' lack  of  power.  He  recalls  the  fact  that  the  question  of 
bishops  was  in  agitation  in  1725,  shortly  after  Gibson  came  to 
the  see,  and  points  out  that  Lord  Townshend  was  such  a  good 
friend  to  that  "  Orthodox  Prelate  "  that  he  would  have  combined 
with  him  to  bring  the  plan  into  execution,  had  it  been  thought 
advisable  and  not  dangerous  to  the  interests  of  the  state. 

What  Walpole  anticipated  from  an  agitation  of  the  scheme 
under  the  condition  of  things  then  existing  may  be  best  ex- 
pressed in  his  own  words :  "  I  cou'd  not  forbear,"  he  says, 
"  letting  your  Lordship  know  that  I  apprehended  as  soon  as  a 

^  The  letter  was  also  sent  to  Seeker,  Bishop  of  Oxford,  January  2,  1750-51 
(^London  Chronicle,,  June  27,  1769,  which  wrongly  puts  the  date  of  the 
letter  May  9,  1750).  The  contents  of  Walpole's  communication  seem  never 
to  have  been  accurately  known  by  any  except  those  immediately  concerned. 
Chandler  says  simply  that  it  was  friendly  in  tone,  and  cites  the  testimony  "of 
a  Person  of  the  strictest  Veracity,  who  saw  his  Letter  soon  after  it  was  written, 
and  remembers  the  Nature  and  Scope  of  it "  {Free  Examination,  3-4,  with 
notes). 

2  Chandler,  Free  Examittaiion,  4. 


120  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

Scheme  for  sending  Bishops  to  y''  Colonys  altho'  with  certain 
restrictions  shou'd  under  your  Lordship's  Authority  &  Influ- 
ence be  made  publick  it  wou'd  immediately  become  y®  Topick 
of  all  Conversation ;  a  matter  of  Controversy  in  y®  Pulpitts,  as 
well  as  by  Pamphletts,  &  Libells,  with  a  Spirit  of  bitterness  & 
acrimony  that  prevail  more  frequently  in  disputes  about  Religion 
as  y*"  Authors  and  Readers  are  differently  affected  than  on  any 
other  Subject.  .  .  .  The  Dissenters  of  all  Sorts  whom  I  men- 
tion with  no  other  regard  or  concern  than  as  they  are  generally 
well-affected,  &  indeed  necessary  supporters  to  y®  present 
establishment  in  State,  &  therefore  shou'd  not  be  provok'd  or 
alienated  against  it,  will  by  the  instigation  and  Complaints  of 
their  bretthren  in  y®  Colonys  altho'  with  no  solid  reason  be 
loud  in  their  discourses  and  writings  upon  this  intended  inno- 
vation in  America,  and  those  in  y®  Colonies  will  be  exasperated 
&  animated  to  make  warm  representations  against  it  to  y® 
Government  here,  as  a  design  to  establish  Ecclesiastical  power 
in  its  full  extent  among  them  by  Degrees ;  altho'  y'^  first  step 
seems  to  be  moderate  &  measured,  by  conferring  y^  Authority 
of  y*^  Bishops  to  be  planted  amongst  them  to  certain  Colonys 
and  Functions."  Nay,  more,  Walpole  is  inclined  to  believe 
that  the  opposition  would  not  be  confined  to  the  dissenters, 
but  that  the  high-church  party,  for  the  time  quiet,  would  seize 
such  a  plan  as  a  handle  for  criticising  the  king  and  his  min- 
isters, and  that  the  members  of  the  low-church  party,  in  gen- 
eral friends  of  the  government,  would  be  hostile  to  those  who 
furthered  such  a  project  for  stirring  up  strife  among  the  col- 
onists, who  were  at  that  moment  so  quiet  and  satisfied  with 
*  both  their  civil  and  their  ecclesiastical  condition.  In  short,  he 
believes  that,  if  the  matter  were  brought  before  Parliament,  the 
step  would  offer  a  very  good  occasion  for  bringing  out  party 
differences  which  had  been  latent  since  1745. 

Walpole  then  comes  to  consider  a  proposal  which  Sherlock 
had  made  to  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  namely, 
that  the  various  governors  be  asked  to  give  their  opinions  on 
the  subject  of  the  introduction  of  bishops  into  their  respective 
provinces.  This  step  of  the  bishop  he  unhesitatingly  condemns. 
In  the  first  place,  he  thinks  that  in  the  letter  which  Sherlock 


WALPOLE'S  LETTER.  121 

and  the  Society  purpose  to  send  to  the  colonial  governors  they 
have  given  guarantees  which  they  cannot  carry  out.  "  Can  you 
undertake  to  promise,"  he  asks,  "that  no  coercive,  or  other 
Ecclesiastical  power  besides  Ordination  &  Confirmation,  shall 
ever  be  proposed  &  pressed  upon  ye  Colonys  when  Bishops 
have  been  once  settled  amongst  them,  or  beyond  what  is  at 
present  exercised  by  the  Bishop  of  Londons  Commissary.  .  .  . 
Can  y®  Society  undertake  that  y*^  maintenance  of  y®  Bishops 
.  .  .  shall  be  no  Burthen  to  y**  Colonys."  In  the  face  of  these 
difficulties,  he  thinks  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  both 
governors  and  people  would  reject  the  scheme.  But  if  nothing 
of  this  sort  be  apprehended,  Sherlock's  project  seems  to  him 
still  impracticable  and  blameworthy;  for  to  what  end  or  purpose 
should  he  consult  the  governors  and  people  of  America  upon 
a  matter  which  is  still  under  the  consideration  of  the  council } 
Should  the  former  be  induced  to  return  a  favorable  answer, 
and  should  the  latter  decide  that  for  reasons  of  state  the  step 
is  inadvisable,  great  confusion  and  strife  would  arise.  For  this 
reason,  Walpole  strongly  advises  the  bishop  to  wait  until  the 
council  has  given  its  opinion  in  the  matter,  and  urges  him  not 
to  be  impatient  if  it  should  delay,  but  to  regard  the  fact  as  an 
indication  that  it  is  unwilling  to  move  hastily  in  so  important 
an  undertaking.!  Sherlock  was  induced,  probably  by  this  letter, 
to  postpone  his  proposed  queries  to  the  several  governors  until 
some  future  date. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  prophetic  significance  of  Wal- 
pole's  letter,  for  precisely  what  he  foretold  about  the  resistance 
which  would  arise  from  the  colonies  as  soon  as  the  plan  became 
known  came  to  pass.  In  support  of  the  view  that  the  refusal 
of  the  government  to  aid  the  bishop  in  the  furtherance  of 
his  plans  was  influenced  by  such  considerations  as  Walpole 
suggested,  and  did  not,  as  some  have  maintained,  arise  purely 
from  indifference,  the  correspondence  which  followed  between 
Walpole  and  Newcastle  may  be  cited.^ 

^  For  the  whole  letter,  see  Appendix  A,  No.  xi.,  from  Newcastle  Papers^ 
Home  Series,  32721,  f.  60. 

2 An  opinion  expressed  in  1764  by  Archbishop  Drummond  is  as  follows: 
"  In  the  late  reign,  the  fears  of  disturbing  his  majesty's  governors,  particularly 


122  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

Soon  after  Walpole  had  written  to  Sherlock,  he  sent  a  copy 
of  the  letter  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  with  an  explanation  of 
how  he  came  to  write  it.  With  Newcastle  he  could  have  had  no 
occasion  for  guarding  or  for  concealing  his  real  meaning ;  and 
what  he  says  in  his  communication  to  him  bears  out  in  every 
particular  what  he  had  previously  said  in  his  letter  to  Sherlock.^ 
Newcastle's  reply  to  Walpole  of  July  5  is  in  the  same  tenor. 
"  I  think,"  he  writes,  "  there  is  great  weight,  also  in  the  con- 
sequences. You  so  judiciously  suggest,  that  This  Affair  may 
have  at  Home,  in  reviving  old  Disputes,  &  Distinctions,  which 
are  at  present,  quiet ;  and,  perhaps,  creating  new  Divisions 
amongst  Those,  Who  sincerely  mean  the  good  of  His  Majesty's 
Government  and  the  Good  of  their  Country.  For  These 
Reasons,  I  am  persuaded.  The  Lords  of  Council,  will  fully 
Consider  all  These  Points,  before  any  material  Step  is  taken 
in  this  Affair."  2  Walpole,  in  his  acknowledgment  of  the 
receipt  of  Newcastle's  letter,  again  alludes  to  the  scheme,  styl- 
ing it  "  a  matter  of  .  .  .  much  importance  to  Ye  Peace  and  Quiet 
of  his  Majesty's  Government."  ^  The  hostile  attitude  of  such 
men  as  Newcastle  and  Walpole  proved  too  powerful  to  be  over- 
come, and  Sherlock's  plan  received  no  further  consideration  in 
the  council. 

About  this  time  the  efforts  of  Sherlock  began  to  be  reenforced 
by  those  of  some  of  his  brethren  on  the  episcopal  bench.  Chief 
among  his  new  allies  were  Thomas  Seeker,  Bishop  of  Oxford, 
and  William  Butler,  Bishop  of  Durham,  author  of  the  celebrated 
Analogy.      The  latter,  in    1750,  drew  up  a  plan  detailing  the 

in  New  England,  so  influenced  the  ministry,  that  they  not  only,  perhaps  very 
wisely,  hesitated  about  the  proposal  of  settling  bishops  in  America,  but  filially 
postponed  it"  (Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  '\.  142). 
This  statement  is  true  as  far  as  it  goes. 

1  Newcastle  Papers,  Home  Series,  32721,  f.  158.  Compare  the  following 
statement :  ''  Your  Grace  will  be  so  good  as  to  manage  this  Confidence,  of 
an  accidental,  &  private  Correspondence  between  y^  Bishops,  &  me  with  your 
usual  discretion,  because  if  my  apprehensions  are  at  all  well  founded,  the  pro- 
posal of  so  great  a  man  to  settle  Episcopacy  in  the  Colonys  should  be  as  little 
known  as  possible  to  y^  Publick." 

"^Newcastle  Papers,  Home  Series,  32721,  f.  167. 

^  July  10,  1750,  Ibid.  i.  369. 


BISHOP  BUTLER'S  PLAN"  OF  1750.  123 

limitations  under  which  the  proposed  bishops  would  be  sent.  He 
explains  : 

'*  I.  That  no  coercive  power  is  desired  over  the  laity  in  any 
case,  but  only  a  power  to  regulate  the  clergy  who  are  in  Episco- 
pal orders,  and  to  correct  and  punish  them  according  to  the  law 
of  the  Church  of  England,  in  case  of  misbehaviour  or  neglect  of 
duty,  with  such  powers  as  the  commissaries  abroad  have  exer- 
cised. 

"  2.  That  nothing  is  desired  for  such  bishops  that  may  in  the 
least  interfere  with  the  dignity,  or  authority,  or  interest  of  the 
governor,  or  any  other  officer  of  state.  Probate  of  wills, 
licenses  for  marriages,  &c.,  to  be  left  in  the  hands  where  they 
are ;  and  no  share  in  the  temporal  government  is  desired  for 
bishops. 

"  3.  The  maintenance  of  such  bishops  not  to  be  at  the  charge 
of  the  colonies. 

"4.  No  bishops  are  intended  to  be  settled  in  places  where 
the  government  is  in  the  hands  of  dissenters,'' as  in  New  Eng- 
land, &c. ;  but  authority  to  be  given  only  to  ordain  clergy  for 
such  Church  of  England  congregations  as  are  among  them,  and 
to  inspect  into  the  manners  and  behaviour  of  the  said  clergy, 
and  to  confirm  the  members  thereof."  ^ 

This  series  of  proposals,  though  not  unlike  many  others  of 
the  period,  is  noteworthy  as  coming  from  so  eminent  a  man ; 
for  it  justifies  the  assumption  that,  whatever  would  have  been 
the  results  of  the  introduction  of  bishops,  many  of  the  advocates 
of  the  measure  were  actuated  by  purely  spiritual  motives.     On 

^  A  copy  of  Butler's  plan  of  1750,  in  his  own  handwriting,  was  formerly  in 
the  possession  of  William  Vassal,  of  Boston.  It  was  first  published  by  the 
Reverend  East  Apthorp  of  Cambridge,  Massachusetts.  It  was  reprinted  by  a 
writer  signing  himself  "  The  Anatomist "  (Dr.  William  Smith,  provost  of  the 
College  of  Philadelphia),  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  December  8,  1768,  from 
Butler's  copy  as  revised  and  approved  by  Sherlock  and  published  in  the  Eng- 
lish edition  of  Johnson's  Ethics,  London,  1753  (see  Pennsylvania  Gazette, 
December  8,  1768,  note).  It  may  also  be  found  in  An  Address  from  the 
Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  to  the  Episcopalians  in  Virginia,  21-22  ; 
Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  408 ;  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical 
Society,  Collections,  i.  142-144  (especially  143,  explanatory  note  2).  It  is 
here  reprinted  from  the  source  last  named. 


124  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

*  the  other  hand,  such  a  careful  Hst  of  refutations  shows  that  the 
apprehensions  of  the  colonists  had  become  sufficiently  impor- 
tant to  be  worthy  of  consideration. ^ 

The  endeavor  to  allay  any  apprehension  which  might  arise 
from  the  extension  of  the  Church  of  England  showed  itself  in  a 
marked  degree  on  all  sides  at  this  time.  For  example,  the 
Society,  in  a  series  of  instructions  issued  to  its  missionaries  in 
1753,  enjoins  them  "that  they  take  special  care  to  give  no 
offense  to  the  Civil  Government  by  intermeddling  with  affairs 


1  The  proposals  were  introduced  by  the  following  preamble :  "  As  the  Chief 
obstruction  to  the  settling  Bishops  in  America  arises  from  an  apprehension 
here  that  the  several  Colonies  abroad  would  be  unwilling  to  have  Bishops 
among  them,  from  a  jealousy  that  introducing  ecclesiastical  power  among 
them  may  interfere  with  some  rights  which,  by  custom,  or  by  acts  of  their 
respective  assemblies,  are  now  vested  in  other  hands ;  it  is  become  necessary, 
in  order  to  know  their  sentiments,  to  inform  them  rightly  in  the  case.  Their 
objections  (if  they  have  any)  must  be,  as  is  supposed,  upon  one  or  all  of 
the  following  accounts. 

"  I .  With  respect  to  the  coercive  power  such  Bishops  may  exercise  over 
the  people  in  causes  Ecclesiastical. 

"2.  With  respect  to  the  interest  or  authority  of  the  Governors  there. 

"3.  With  respect  to  the  burthen  that  may  be  brought  upon  the  people, 
of  supporting  and  maintaining  Bishops  there. 

"4.  With  respect  to  such  of  the  colonies  where  the  government  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  Independents,  or  other  dissenters,  whose  principles  are  inconsist- 
ent with  episcopal  government." 

Conceiving  that  these  objections  were  all  founded  on  a  misapprehension  of 
the  case,  Butler  advanced  the  considerations  cited  in  the  text.  It  was  pro- 
posed to  the  Society  "  to  recommend  to  such  of  their  members  as  had  corre- 
spondents abroad,  to  acquaint  their  friends  with  these  particulars,  in  order  to 
know  the  sense  of  the  people  there,  when  duly  informed  of  the  case ;  and  to 
know  what  other  objections  they  may  have  to  the  said  proposals."  The 
following  testimony  was  made,  November  28,  1750,  by  six  Church  of  England 
clergymen  resident  in  New  England,  —  Timothy  Cutler,  Ebenezer  Miller,  Henry 
Caner,  Charles  Brockwell,  William  Hooper :  "  We,  the  subscribers,  having 
read  the  foregoing  objections,  are  not  able  to  recollect  any  others  made  by 
the  dissenters  here  against  resident  Bishops  in  America,  but  what  are  herein 
contained ;  and  notwithstanding  these  objections,  we  are  heartily  desirous 
that  bishops  should  be  provided  for  the  plantations,  and  are  fully  persuaded 
that  our  several  congregations,  and  all  other  congregations  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  New  England,  are  earnestly  desirous  of  the  same "  (Chandler, 
Life  of  Johnson,  Appendix,  1 69-1 71). 


SHERLOCK  AS  COLONIAL  DIOCESAN.  125 

not  relating  to  their  calling  or  function.^  Dr.  Johnson,  in  a  let- 
ter ^  appended  to  the  English  edition  of  his  Elements  of  Phi- 
losophy, which  appeared  in  this  year,  is  equally  deprecatory, 
although  expressions  in  other  parts  of  the  same  letter  tend  to 
counterbalance  his  assurances.^ 

Meanwhile,  Sherlock  continued  his  complaints  to  his  corre- 
spondents, both  within  and  without  the  Church  of  England.* 
Nor  did  he  confine  himself  to  expostulation ;  he  even  sought  to 
resort  to  coercion,  for  he  went  so  far  as  to  refuse  to  receive  a 
commission  for  the  exercise  of  the  colonial  jurisdiction.  Since 
this  action  naturally  threw  the  colonies  into  great  confusion,^  he 
finally  relented,  however,  so  far  as  to  consent  to  act  as  diocesan 
provisionally  until  some  other  arrangement  could  be  made. 
Although  he  would  never  consent  to  take  out  a  commission,  he 
was  by  1752  obliged,  much  against  his  will,  to  reconcile  himself 
to  the  idea  of  assuming  the  ecclesiastical  charge  of  the  colonies.^ 

1  See  the  Society's  Abstract,  1753.  p.  35.  But  compare  the  following  lines 
from  the  Abstract  for  1756  (p.  43),  in  which  the  missionaries  are  instructed 
"  to  endeavor,  with  the  utmost  care  and  zeal  in  this  juncture,  to  support  his 
Majesty's  Government,  and  to  support  the  Welfare  and  Safety  of  his  Majesty's 
American  subjects,  and  for  this  good  purpose,  that  they  would  upon  all  proper 
occasions,  make  the  people  sensible  of  the  great  blessing  they  enjoy,  in  the 
free  exercise  of  their  religion,  and  the  advantages  of  lawful  government  under 
the  benign  reign  of  a  Protestant  prince." 

2  A  Letter  contaitiing  some  Itiipartial  Thoughts  concerning  the  Settletnent 
of  Bishops  in  America.     By  the  Author  and  some  of  his  Brethren.'''' 

^  For  example,  he  says  {Elements,  262-271),  that  "  in  proportion  as  episcopal 
congregations  have  been  settled  among  those  called  Independents.  .  .  .  their 
principles  of  government  have  become  more  unmonarchical  and  constitutional." 

*  For  example,  to  Dr.  Johnson,  in  1749,  to  whom  he  gave  an  account  of  his 
eflforts  to  obtain  an  episcopal  establishment.  Cf.  Wilberforce,  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  139,  note  i,  and  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land,  390;  both  citing  Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson,  131-132. 

5  On  October  6,  1749,  Commissary  Price  of  New  England  wrote  to  Bear- 
croft,  secretary  of  the  Society :  "  We  are  very  unsettled  here  in  our  Ecclesias- 
tical State,  it  is  the  current  Report  that  the  Bishop  of  London  has  refused  to 
concern  himself  with  the  American  Churches,  and  I  suppose  my  Commissarial 
power  is  now  extinct,  I  should  be  glad  to  have  your  thoughts  upon  it  and  to 
know  what  we  are  to  expect "  (Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts) 
434;  Foote,  Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  i.  387). 

^  Bearcroft  announced  the  Bishop's  final  determination  in  a  letter  to  Dr. 
Miller,  May  i,  1752  :  "There  are  now,"  he  said,  "no  farther  hopes  of  obtain- 


126  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

"  I  think  myself,  at  present,  in  a  very  bad  situation,"  he  writes 
at  this  time.  "  Bishop  of  a  vast  country,  without  power  or  influ- 
ence, or  any  means  of  promoting  true  reUgion,  sequestered  from 
the  people  over  whom  I  have  the  care  and  must  never  hope  to  see, 
I  should  be  tempted  to  throw  off  all  this  care  quite,  were  it  not 
for  the  sake  of  preserving  even  the  appearance  of  an  episcopal 
church  in  the  plantation."  ^  Truly  an  enviable  state  of  things 
for  the  Church  of  England  in  America,  always  unpopular,  but 
now,  in  consequence  of  the  impending  crisis,  almost  hated,  with 
no  authoritative  guide  save  a  man  beyond  the  seas  who  per- 
formed his  duty  only  in  the  most  perfunctory  way,  because 
there  was  no  escape  for  him,  and  who  would  not  even  take  the 
necessary  steps  to  legalize  the  small  amount  of  jurisdiction 
which  he  consented  to  exercise ! 

As  the  middle  of  the  century  drew  near,  the  authorities  in 
Virginia  began  a  systematic  course  of  repressive  measures 
against  the  dissenters,  particularly  the  Methodists,  who  for  some 
years  had  been  organizing  in  the  province.^  One  of  the  conse- 
quences of  this  persecution  was  the  rise  of  an  interesting  corre- 
spondence between  the  Bishop  of  London  and  Dr.  Joseph 
Doddridge,  which  gave  the  former  another  chance  to  express, 

ing  a  Bishop  for  you,  and  my  Lord  of  London  talks  of  taking  out  his  patent 
for  the  ordinary  Jurisdiction  of  the  Plantations."  (Perry,  Historical  Collec- 
tions, iii.  (Massachusetts)  444.)  But  if  Sherlock  ever  seriously  entertained 
this  intention,  he  never  carried  it  out. 

1  Abbey,  English  Church  and  Bishops,  i.  363,  citing  John  Stoughton, 
Religion  in  England,  i.  325  ;  Anderson,  Colonial  Chnrch,  iii.  433  ;  Chandler, 
Life  of  Johnson,  Appendix,  171-172. 

'■^  Dissent  became  prominent  in  Virginia  with  the  "  revival  "  of  Whitefield, 
who  visited  the  colony  for  the  first  time  in  1740.  Bibliography  of  the  treat- 
ment of  dissent  in  Virginia :  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  iii.  ch.  xxiv. ;  Briggs, 
Presbyterianistn  in  America,  86-90;  Burk,  History  of  Virginia,  ii.  138,  iii. 
119,  125,  iv.  377;  Campbell,  Introdjiction  to  the  History  of  Virginia,  114-117; 
Foote,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  chs.  i.-iii.,  vi.,  ix.,  xiv. ;  Hartwell.  Blair,  and  Chil- 
ton, Present  State  of  Virginia,  64-67  ;  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  i. 
(Virginia)  ch.  vi.  ff. ;  Hening,  Statutes,  v.-ix. ;  Howison,  History  of  Virginia, 
ii.  31,  155,  160,  192;  Jefferson,  Notes  on  Virgiftia,  307-319;  Jones,  Present 
State  of  Virgiftia,  65-74,  95-112  ;  Meade,  Old  Churches,  Ministers,  and  Fami- 
lies of  Virginia,  i.  18,  94,  150-151,  162-163,  231,  250,  275,  283-284,  301,  387, 
407,  470,  ii.  179;  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  604-614,  and  His- 
torical Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  ;  Semple,  History  of  the  Baptists,  chs.  i.-iii. 


SHERLOCK'S  LETTER   TO  DR.   DODDRIDGE.  127 

his  views  on  the  general  subject  of  episcopal  control  in  the  col- 
onies. His  first  letter  to  Dr.  Doddridge,  dated  May  11,  1751, 
was  in  answer  to  one  from  Doddridge  on  the  subject  of  the 
famous  Virginia  Methodist  preacher,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Davies. 
After  disposing  of  the  specific  question  in  hand,  Sherlock  passes 
to  his  favorite  theme  of  the  folly  of  subjecting  the  Church 
of  England  in  America  to  a  non-resident  diocesan.^  The  letter 
is  interesting  to  us  for  two  reasons :  first,  because  it  shows  the 
determined  insistence  of  Sherlock  on  what  had  grown  to  be 
the  constant  burden  of  his  song  —  the  total  non-interference  of 
the  clergy,  commissary,  or  bishop,  except  in  matters  of  church 
administration,  and  the  absence  of  any  intention  to  press  upon 
the  colonists  an  episcopate  which  would  in  any  way  encroach 
on  their  vested  rights  in  civil  and  ecclesiastical  affairs;  and, 
secondly,  because  it  admits  that  the  dissenters,  unwilHng  to 
accept  these  constantly  reiterated  assurances,  were  prepared  to 
resist  to  the  utmost  any  attempts  to  introduce  bishops  into 
America. 

Perhaps  the  very  fact  of  Sherlock's  attempt  to  show,  as  a  first 
step  in  the  accomplishment  of  his  plans,  that  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don had  little  basis  either  in  law  or  in  fact  for  the  exercise  of 
his  authority,  drew  renewed  attention  to  the  subject  in  the  colo- 
nies. At  any  rate,  from  the  correspondence  of  this  period  we 
learn  much  concerning  the  light  in  which  the  bishop's  jurisdic- 
tion was  regarded  both  at  home  and  abroad.     There  were  ap- 

1  '■'•  Sundry  of  the  people  have  been  indicted  and  fin'd,"  he  says,  "  and  it  is 
upon  this  information  (I  suppose)  that  you  express  yourself  apprehensive  tliat 
methods  of  severity,  not  to  say  of  oppression,  may  be  used.  Of  this  I  have 
heard  nothing.  But  give  me  leave  to  right  you  in  one  thing,  and  to  tell  you 
that  my  name  neither  is  nor  can  be  used  to  any  such  purpose.  The  Bishop 
of  London  and  his  Commissarys  have  no  such  power  in  the  plantations ;  and 
I  believe  they  never  desired  to  have  it,  so  if  there  be  any  ground  for  such  com- 
plaint, the  Civil  Government  only  is  concerned.  .  .  .  The  care  of  it  .  .  . 
[the  church  of  England  there]  is  supposed  to  be  in  the  Bishop  of  London. 
How  he  comes  to  be  charged  with  this  care  I  will  not  enquire  now ;  but  sure  I 
am,  that  the  care  is  improperly  lodged,  for  a  Bishop  to  live  at  one  end  of  the 
world,  and  his  church  at  the  other,  must  make  the  office  very  uncomfortable  to 
the  Bishop,  and  in  a  great  measure  useless  to  the  people  "  (Perry,  Historical 
Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  371-374 ;  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  England, 
391-392  ;  citing  Doddridge,  Correspondence  and  Diary,  v.  201). 


128  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

parently  two  views  on  the  subject.  These  are  well  outlined  in  a 
report  on  the  state  of  the  church  in  Connecticut  which  the  Rev- 
erend James  Wetmore  sent  to  Sherlock,  August  ii,  1752.  The 
advocates  of  one  view  maintained  that  the  colonies  were  part 
and  possession  of  the  English  nation,  and  were  therefore  sub- 
ject to  that  government  in  all  things  religious  and  civil ;  since, 
then,  the  mother  country  was  of  the  Church  of  England,  they 
were  also  theoretically  subjects  of  that  church.  The  authority 
for  the  establishment  they  drew  from  the  declarations  in  the  Act 
of  Union,  and  from  Gibson's  patent  empowering  him  to  exercise 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  over  the  plantations. 

Those  who  took  the  opposite  view  based  their  opinion  on  a 
passage  in  a  letter  from  the  lords  chief  justices  to  Governor 
Dummer  of  Massachusetts,  in  1725,  which  declared  that  there 
was  "  no  regular  establishment  of  any  national  or  provincial 
Church  in  these  plantations  "  (meaning  New  England),  and  also 
in  a  passage  in  a  letter  of  May  24,  1735,  from  Bishop  Gibson  to 
Dr.  Colman,  in  which  he  says :  "  My  opinion  has  always  been, 
that  the  religious  state  of  New  England  is  founded  on  an  equal 
liberty  to  all  Protestants,  none  of  which  can  claim  the  name  of 
a  national  establishment,  or  any  kind  of  superiority  over  the 
rest."  Wetmore,  who  held  the  former  of  the  opposing  views, 
and  who  sent  to  the  Bishop  of  London  for  his  opinion  on  the 
subject,  evidently  had  a  high  estimate  of  that  prelate's  colonial 
influence ;  for  he  remarks,  "  A  short  paragraph  from  your  Lord- 
ship would  be  of  equal  authority  with  those  alleged  against  us, 
and  carry  the  same  reverence  and  respect ;  and,  for  my  own 
part,  I  shall  most  humbly  submit  to  correction  from  your  Lord- 
ship's hands  if  I  have  gone  into  mistakes."  ^  Whether  the 
bishop  ever  sent  the  "  short  paragraph  "  does  not  appear.  Even 
if  he  had  done  so,  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  extremely  uncertain 
whether  his  words  would  have  had  the  weight  which  his  cor- 
respondent expected.  It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  the 
discussion  took  place  in  New  England,  where  the  authority  of 
the  Church  of  England  and  of  the  Bishop  of  London  had  a 
minimum  of  recognition. 

After  Sherlock's  determination  temporarily  to  assume  his 
1  Hawks  and  Perry,  Comiectiad  CJuirch  Doaintents,  i.  292-295. 


REPORTS  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  COLONIAL  CHURCH.     129 

colonial  jurisdiction  was  made  public,  apparently  many  of  the 
•  clergymen  beyond  the  seas  began  to  regain  courage.  A  sign 
of  renewed  interest  is  the  fact  that  many  accounts  of  the  state 
of  the  church  were  sent  at  this  time  to  the  authorities  in  Eng- 
land.^ Take  as  an  example  a  letter  of  September  29,  1752, 
from  the  Reverend  Alexander  Adams  of  Maryland  to  Bishop 
Sherlock.  It  appears  that  Adams  had  sent  to  the  bishop  on 
the  5th  of  October  in  the  previous  year  an  appeal  urging  the 
necessity  of  bishops  in  America.  He  had  written  this  earlier 
letter  upon  the  news  of  Sherlock's  refusal  to  undertake  the  care 
of  the  plantations.  Now,  hearing  that  his  Lordship  has  recon- 
sidered the  matter,  he  writes  again  to  lay  before  his  diocesan 
the  state  of  the  churches  in  Maryland,  the  origin  and  basis  of 
the  establishment,  and  the  various  attempts  which  have  been 
made  to  subvert  it.  Since  the  watchful  care  of  the  governor 
and  the  lack  of  a  legally-appointed  commissary  make  it  impos- 
sible for  the  clergy  to  assemble  and  address  their  grievances  to 
the  home  government,  Mr.  Adams  has  taken  it  upon  himself  to 
perform  that  duty.  He  begs  his  bishop  to  intercede  with  Lord 
Baltimore  and  his  guardian,  Mr.  Onslow,  speaker  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  to  prevent  the  assembly  from  encroaching  any  more 
upon  the  establishment.  He  regrets  that  for  some  years  the 
clergy  have  had  neither  bishop  nor  commissary  to  call  them 
together  by  authority,  and  expresses  the  hope  that  Sherlock 
will  appoint  two  commissaries,  one  for  the  Eastern  and  one  for 
the  Western  Shore.^  As  was  said  above,  Sherlock  was  the  recip- 
ient of  many  appeals  of  this  sort ;  but  when  they  concerned 
matters  of  purely  church  interest  he  gave  them  little  or  no 
'  attention.  Except  in  Virginia,  where  the  commissarial  office 
went  with  the  presidency  of  the  college,  he  appointed  no  new 
commissaries  ;  hence,  after  those  serving  at  the  time  of  his  acces- 
sion had  died,  there  remained  an  authoritative  representative  of 
the  Bishop  of  London  in  only  one  province  in  America. 

^  No  doubt  the  circular  letter  asking  for  information  concerning  the  state 
of  the  church,  which  Sherlock  sent  out,  September  19,  1750,  to  those  who  had 
been  commissaries  under  his  predecessor,  may  have  had  considerable  to  do 
with  increasing  the  volume  of  his  colonial  correspondence  at  this  time. 

^  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  (Maryland)  327-329. 

9 


I30  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

On  questions  concerning  the  political  status  of  the  colonies 
and  the  relation  of  the  church  thereto,  Sherlock  was  more  ready- 
to  express  himself,  and  we  find  him  constantly  making  decisions 
upon  laws  submitted  to  him  by  the  Lords  Commissioners  for 
Trade  and  Plantations.  The  case  of  the  Virginia  Tobacco  acts 
of  1753,  1755,  and  1758  will  serve  as  a  good  illustration.  These 
acts  were  the  basis  of  the  celebrated  "  Parson's  Cause,"  ^  which 
is  treated  of  at  length  in  every  history  of  the  period.  They  con- 
cern us  here  only  so  far  as  the  Bishop  of  London  was  involved  in 
the  affair.  His  connection  with  it  came  about  in  this  way.  The 
Lords  Commissioners,  believing  the  subject  to  be  one  proper  for 
his  consideration,  transmitted  to  him  the  successive  acts,  together 
with  the  memorial  of  the  Virginia  clergy  directed  against  them.^ 
Sherlock's  reply  reviewing  the  case  is  enclosed  in  the  report  of 
the  Lords  Commissioners  to  the  crown,  recommending  the  dis- 
allowance of  the  acts.  He  takes  the  ground  that  an  act  which 
has  once  received  the  royal  assent  —  like  that  of  1748,  against 
which  the  three  acts  in  question  are  directed  —  can  be  repealed 
only  by  the  same  authority,  and  hence  that  it  cannot  be  abro- 
gated by  any  contrary  act  of  assembly.  For  this  reason  he 
argues  that  the  Virginia  act  of  October  12,  1758,  is  ipso  facto 
null  and  void.  In  the  course  of  his  letter  he  takes  occasion  to 
say  that  the  rights  of  the  clergy  stand  or  fall  with  those  of  the 
crown,  a  significant  utterance  which  may  give  a  clue  to  the  under- 
lying motive  of  his  agitation  for  an  American  episcopate.  The 
Tobacco  Act  was  disallowed  by  the  crown  in  1760.^ 

The  next  case  to  be  taken  up  is  that  of  the  North  Carohna 
Church  Act  of  January,  1755,  entitled  "An  Act  for  appointing 
Parishes  and  Vestries  for  the  encouragement  of  an  Orthodox 

^  For  a  full  account  of  this  subject,  see  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i. 
(Virginia)  434  ff.  (where  the  correspondence  and  other  original  documents 
are  printed)  ;  W.  W.  Henry,  Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  i.  29  ff.  ;  William  Wirt, 
Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  19  fF. ;  Mellen  Chamberlain  in  Winsor,  Narrative  and 
Critical  History,  vi.  1-34;  Foote,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  310  ff .  ;  Campbell, 
History  of  Virginia,  ch.  Ixv.  ;  Burk,  History  of  Virginia,  iii.  ch.  iv.  The  acts 
themselves,  together  with  that  of  1696,  are  printed  in  Hening,  Statutes,  iii., 
vi.,  vii. 

^  See  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  458-460. 

^  Ibid.  461-463. 


THE  NORTH   CAROLINA    CHURCH  ACT  OF  nss-         131 

Clergy,  etc."  This  was  naturally  referred  to  the  lords  in  coun- 
cil for  consideration,  who,  "  it  appearing  to  their  Lordships  that 
the  Law  .  .  .  might  operate  to  the  prejudice  of  and  interfere 
with  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London," 
ordered  their  secretary  to  send  his  Lordship  a  copy,  in  order  that 
he  might  express  his  opinion  upon  it.^  The  bishop's  reply  is 
interesting  to  us  chiefly  from  the  fact  that  it  contains  the  fullest 
and  latest  exposition  of  his  views  on  the  subject  of  his  jurisdic- 
tion. He  considers  one  after  the  other  the  two  questions 
referred  to  him:  (i)  How  far  the  provisions  of  the  act  may 
"  affect  the  right  of  the  Crown  to  the  Patronage  and  Presenta- 
tion to  ecclesiastical  Benefices"  ;  (2)  How  far  they  may  "affect 
and  interfere  xvith  the  Bishop's  ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the 
Colonies."  ^ 

The  first  question  he  dismisses  rather  summarily  as  follows : 
The  patronage  and  livings  are  rightfully  in  the  control  of  the 
crown,  and  are  delegated  to  the  governor  by  virtue  of  his  royal 
*  commission;  the  act  of  1755  appropriates  to  the  vestries  the 
patronage  of  all  livings  in  the  province,  sets  up  a  new  jurisdic- 
tion quite  inconsistent  with  the  Church  of  England  form  of 
government,  excludes  any  bishop  from  the  examination  or  cor- 
rection of  any  misbehavior  in  the  church,  and  takes  from  the 
crown  the  right  of  appeal ;  by  these  provisions,  therefore,  the 
king's  supremacy  and  the  bishop's  jurisdiction  are  transferred 
from  their  proper  lodgment  to  the  vestries  of  the  several  par- 
ishes. 

Having  pronounced  this  rather  general  opinion  upon  the  first 
of  the  two  questions  referred  to  him.  Bishop  Sherlock  proceeds 
to  a  much  fuller  discussion  of  the  question  as  to  how  far  the  act 
may  trespass  upon  his  own  colonial  jurisdiction.  To  this  end 
he  deems  it  necessary  to  show  whether  the  Bishop  of  London 
really  has  any  authority  over  the  plantations,  and  if  so  what. 
As  an  answer  to  this  question  he  encloses  the  report  made  by 
him  upon  his  accession  to  the  see,  with  a  few  appended  remarks 
as  to  its  history.  We  have  so  often  had  occasion  to  refer  to 
and  discuss  various  portions  of  this  address,  that  we  need  here 

"^  North  Carolina  Records,  vi.  68 
^  Ibid.  10-13. 


132  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

take  time  only  to  consider  the  supplementary  remarks,  so  far  as 
they  concern  our  subject. 

Among  other  things  he  seeks  to  explain  the  attitude  which 
he  has  taken  toward  the  Gibson  commission.  "  It  may  be 
asked,  perhaps,"  he  says,  "why  the  present  Bishop  of  London 
could  not  go  on  with  the  Jurisdiction  abroad,  as  his  Predeces- 
sors had  done,  ever  since  the  settling  of  the  Colonies.  My 
answer,  is,  that  if  the  Jurisdiction  had  come  to  me  upon  the  foot 
of  customary  usage,  as  it  had  done  to  my  Predecessors,  till 
Bishop  Gibson's  time,  I  should  have  made  no  difficulty  of  act- 
ing upon  that  foot,  and  I  doubt  not  but  those  who  come  after 
me  would  have  gone  on  in  the  same  way ;  but  when  Bishop 
Gibson,  for  reasons  best  known  to  himself,  applyed  for  a  patent, 
and  the  consideration  thereof  was  referred  to  the  Attorney  and 
Solicitor  General,  and  they  reported  that  the  Jurisdiction  was 
in  the  Crown,  and  that  the  Bishop  of  London  had  no  right  to 
meddle,  it  was  time  for  me  to  consider  the  danger  that  attends 
the  invasion  of  the  Prerogative  of  the  Crown,  which  could  not 
be  avoided  but  by  accepting  a  Patent  of  like  form  with  that  which 
was  granted  before,  which  I  judged  not  proper  for  me  to  do."  ^ 
This  whole  explanation  is  very  unsatisfactory  and  unconvinc- 
ing, and  avoids  the  very  point  which  one  would  wish  to  have 
elucidated;  for  just  why  his  Lordship  judged  it  not  proper  to 
renew  the  Gibson  patent,  he  does  not  deign  to  inform  us. 
Moreover,  the  statements  made  here  do  not  accord  with  those 
made  in  other  places,  —  for  example,  in  his  letters  to  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle,  where  the  reason  he  ascribes  for  wishing  to  dis- 
continue the  colonial  jurisdiction  customarily  exercised  by  the 
Bishop  of  London  lies  in  the  too  great  care  and  responsibility 
•  which  it  involves.^  In  short,  this  letter  leaves  us  as  much  in  the 
»  dark  as  ever  concerning  Sherlock's  motives.  Perhaps  he  was, 
for  personal  reasons,  disinclined  to  assume  the  responsibility 
which  such  a  charge,  legally  conferred,  would  carry  with  it. 
Perhaps  he  conscientiously  believed  that,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  a  non-resident  bishop  ought  not  to  undertake  the  charge. 
'  Or,  finally,  perhaps  he  was  actuated  by  motives  purely  political, 

^  North  Carolina  Records.,  vi.  13. 
2  See  above,  p.  117  and  note  4. 


THE  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  SECKER  AND  JOHNSON.     133 

,  or  at  least,  ecclesiastico-political.  Assuming  that  a  colonial 
episcopate  was  indispensable,  he  sought  to  secure  it  by  starving 
the  English  government  on  the  one  side,  and  the  colonial 
Episcopalians  on  the  other,  into  acquiescence,  by  neglecting  to 
perform,  so  far  as  his  duties  as  a  Christian  shepherd  would 
permit,  even  the  few  duties  appertaining  to  the  Bishop  of 
London  as  colonial  diocesan. 

/  At  any  rate,  whatever  influenced  him  to  act  as  he  did,  his  pol- 
icy of  non-intervention  in  the  concerns  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 

'  land  in  the  American  colonies  was  rigidly  adhered  to.  By  this 
time  all  the  commissaries  appointed  by  Compton,  Robinson, 
and  Gibson  were  dead,  and  their  places  had  been  filled  nowhere 
except  in  Virginia.  This  lack  of  oversight  was  so  bitterly  felt 
that  even  the  most  ardent  advocates  of  an  American  episcopate 
were  willing  to  prejudice  their  cause  by  a  return  to  the  old 
system.^ 

An  interesting  episode  of  this  period  is  the  correspondence 
carried  on  by  Dr.  Johnson  of  Connecticut  and  Bishop  Seeker 
on  the  subject  of  an  American  episcopate.  The  first  important 
letter  in  the  series  is  one  from  Seeker,  dated  March  19,  1754, 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  Johnson's  Elemetits  of  Philosophy, 
published  in  London  in  the  previous  year.  He  expresses  satis- 
faction with  the  arguments  set  forth  in  the  letter  appended  to 
that  work,  and  regrets  that,  since  all  their  efforts  have  come  to 
nothing,  they  must  wait  until  a  more  favorable  time  for  pushing 
the  cause  which  they  have  so  much  at  heart.  Meantime,  he 
suggests  that  the  Episcopalians  direct  their  attention  to  placat- 
ing the  dissenters,  who,  he  says,  will  be  heeded  by  the  govern- 
ment so  long  as  they  have  any  objections  to  the  plan.  The 
ground  of  their  aversion  he  attributes  to  their  uneasiness  caused 
by  the  rapid  growth  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  colonies.^ 
Writing  again  some  years  later.  Seeker  proclaims  to  Johnson 
the  joyful  news  that  he  has  found  Lord  Halifax  "very  earnest 
for  Bishops  in  America,"  and  expresses  hopes  that  they  are  at 
last  on  the  point  of  succeeding  in  their  undertaking  so  soon  as 

"^  New  York  Documents^  vii.  370-374. 

^  Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  lyj-ijc)  ;  Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson,  Appendix, 
176-177. 


134  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

the  war  then  going  on  should  cease.^  But,  aside  from  this  sin- 
gle burst  of  enthusiasm,  he  was  still  biding  his  time ;  and  most 
of  his  letters  throughout  the  period  were  written  to  keep  the 
over-zealous  Johnson  from  taking  any  too  precipitate  step.^  The 
continuation  and  conclusion  of  this  correspondence  will  be  con- 
sidered in  another  connection. 

During  Sherlock's  incumbency  occurred  a  striking  instance 
in  which  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  to  exercise  one 
of  his  most  recognized  functions  was  for  the  first  time  seriously 
questioned  by  members  of  a  congregation  hitherto  noted  for  its 
general  loyalty  to  its  diocesan.  The  case  came  up  at  Christ 
Church,  Philadelphia,  in  connection  with  the  Reverend  William 
McClenaghan,  a  clergyman,  originally  a  Presbyterian  but  after- 
ward converted  to  Episcopacy,  who  came  to  Philadelphia  in  1758.^ 
Some  of  the  congregation  of  Christ  Church  wanted  to  make 
him  a  third  assistant  to  Dr.  Robert  Jenney,  in  spite  of  the  latter's 
wishes.  This  attempt  and  the  discussion  which  it  involved  drew 
forth  some  significant  declarations.  On  the  one  hand,  the  sec- 
ond assistant  minister  at  Christ  Church,  Jacob  Duche,  insisted 
that  no  one  could  be  made  an  assistant  without  the  consent  of  the 
rector  and  the  license  or  the  approbation  of  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don. On  the  other  hand,  the  members  of  the  congregation  who 
had  first  addressed  the  vestry  in  behalf  of  McClenaghan  re- 
torted as  follows  in  a  petition  to  Dr.  Jenney  and  his  vestry :  — 
"  In  Mr.  McClenaghan's  present  state  and  settlement  among  us, 
we  shall  ever  consider  him  invested  with  all  the  powers  neces- 
sary for  the  discharge  of  any  duties  pertaining  to  his  Office  as 
fully  as  if  he  had  his  Lordships  License  .  .  . ;  his  Lordship's 
License  means  nothing  here,  as  we  humbly  apprehe^id,  without  a 

^  Beardsley,  Life  ofjohnsott,  253. 

2  On  October  25,  1760,  when  George  III.  acceded  to  the  throne,  Johnson 
wrote  to  Seeker  as  to  the  advisability  of  moving  his  Majesty  to  settle  bishops 
in  America  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  and  enclosed  the  draft  of  an  "  address 
to  the  king  "  which  he  had  prepared.  Seeker,  thinking  the  time  not  yet  ripe, 
replied  :  "  This  is  a  matter  of  which  you  in  America  cannot  judge  ;  and  there- 
fore I  beg  you  will  attempt  nothing  without  the  advice  of  the  Society  or  of  the 
Bishops"  {/bid.  256). 

^For  a  fuller  account  of  McClenaghan,  see  New  York  Documents,  vii.  415, 
note  I ;  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  ii.  250. 


REVEREND    WILLIAM  McCLENAGHAN'S  CASE.  135 

previous  presentation  from  the  people''  They  insisted  on  the 
validity  of  this  assumption  and  asserted  that  it  was  acknowl- 
edged by  the  late  Bishop  of  London.^ 

This  attitude  was  rather  extreme.  It  is  true  that  the  bishop 
was  not  accustomed  to  put  a  clergyman  into  any  parish  without 
a  presentation  from  the  people ;  but  it  is  doubtful  if  any  prece- 
dent could  have  justified  a  part,  or  even  a  majority,  of  the  con- 
gregation in  calhng,  settling,  and  inducting  a  minister  in  open 
disregard  of  the  wishes  of  their  diocesan.  Certainly  up  to  this 
time  no  such  right  had  ever  been  claimed  in  Pennsylvania.  The 
usual  custom  here,  as  in  other  colonies  where  nomination  was  not 
in  the  hands  of  the  governor  or  of  the  Society  for  Propagating 
the  Gospel,  had  been  for  the  vestry  to  recommend  and  for  the 
bishop  to  approve.  The  basis  for  this  procedure  —  so  far  at 
least  as  it  concerned  Pennsylvania  —  may  be  found  in  a  clause 
of  the  charter  granted  by  Charles  11.  to  William  Penn  :  "  Our 
further  pleasure  is  .  .  .  that  if  any  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
said  Province,  to  the  number  of  Twenty,  shall  .  .  .  signify  .  .  . 
their  desire  to  the  Bishop  of  London  that  any  preacher  or 
preachers,  to  be  approved  of  by  the  said  Bishop,  may  be  sent 
unto  them  for  their  instruction,  that  then  such  preacher  or 
preachers  .  .  .  may  .  .  .  reside  within  the  said  province."  ^  In 
the  opinion  of  Dr.  Smith,  provost  of  the  College  of  Philadelphia, 
this  clause  made  the  approval  of  the  Bishop  of  London  for 
the  time  being  necessary  to  the  establishment  of  every  Episco- 
pal congregation  and  to  the  appointment  of  every  Episcopal 
minister ;  nor  was  it  likely  that  any  laws  made  upon  the  author- 
ity of  the  charter  would  recognize  any  minister  of  the  church 
"  that  had  not  his  Lordship's  license  and  approbation."  ^    After 

^  They  could  point  to  precedents  for  this  position  in  the  cases  of  the  two 
rectors  who  were  appointed  to  King's  Chapel,  Boston,  during  the  Gibson 
period,  Roger  Price  in  1729,  and  Henry  Caner  in  1746  (see  Foote,  Annals 
of  King's  Chapel,  382).  The  case  of  Caner  was  clearly  one  in  which  the 
appointment  was  made  by  the  congregation. 

^Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  ii.  1515.  See  also  p.  36,  note  i,  above, 
where  the  clause  is  cited  in  full. 

^Dr.  Smith  to  Archbishop  Seeker,  November  28,  1759,  TV^w  ^ork  Docu- 
ments, vii.  406-417.  The  sources  of  the  case  are  printed  in  Perry,  Historical 
Collections,  ii.  (Pennsylvania),  295-311,  320-323. 


136  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

some  discussion,  the  side  of  Dr.  Jenney  and  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don was  sustained  ;  McClenaghan,  failing  to  get  his  appoint- 
ment, removed  to  New  Jersey,  and  this  rather  striking  attempt 
of  the  congregation  to  appoint  a  minister  in  spite  of  the  rector 
and  the  diocesan  came  to  nothing.^ 

In  Virginia  there  was  still  a  commissary ;  but  his  authority 
was  even  more  of  a  shadow  than  it  had  hitherto  been.  This  is 
well  illustrated  by  a  case  which  came  up  for  cognizance  about 
the  year  1757.  One  John  Brunskill,  minister  of  Hamilton  parish, 
Prince  WiUiam  County,  openly  persisted  in  an  irregular  course 
of  life,  in  spite  of  repeated  reproof,  advice,  and  exhortation. 
Finally,  the  church  wardens  and  vestry  made  a  complaint  to  the 
commissary  and  one  of  the  representatives  of  the  county.  The 
latter,  being  in  town  during  the  session  of  the  assembly,  brought 
the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  governor,  who  advised  the 
commissary  to  proceed  against  the  offender  in  a  judicial  manner. 
The  commissary  replied  that  he  had  not  sufficient  authority  to 
exercise  any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  or,  even  in  the  most 
notorious  cases,  to  proceed  to  either  suspension  or  deprivation,^ 
but  promised  that  he  would  consult  with  the  clergy  and  report 
to  the  Bishop  of  London,  in  order  to  find  some  means  of  remov- 
ing the  scandal.  Meanwhile  some  of  the  council  informed  the 
governor  that  in  the  time  of  Blair  irregular  clergymen  had  been 
proceeded  against  by  the  governor  and  council ;  whereupon 
Governor  Dinwiddle,  in  spite  of  the  protest  of  Commissary 
Dawson,  deemed  it  advisable  to  lay  the  matter  before  the  coun- 
cil, which  straightway  removed  the  refractory  clergyman  and 
deprived  him  of  his  function  as  a  preacher.  This  step  was  in 
accordance  with  Virginia  law,  which  gave  to  the  governor  and 
council  cognizance  over  all  causes  ecclesiastical  and  civil,  and 
which  had  been  recognized  by  the  late  commissary.^     Neverthe- 

^  It  is  worth  while  to  note  that  a  convention  of  the  Pennsylvania  clergy, 
held  in  1760,  informed  their  bishop  that,  as  the  case  was  placed  before  him, 
his  answer  would  be  a  "final  determination." 

"^  Thomas  Dawson,  who  was  commissary  at  this  time,  had  been  appointed 
in  1752,  four  years  after  the  expiration  of  the  Gibson  patent,  and  had  never 
received  any  commission. 

^  See  Commissary  William  Dawson  to  Sherlock,  July  15,  175 1,  Fulham  MSS. 


ESTIMATE  OF  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY  AND    WORK.         137 

less,  many  persons,  among  them  the  commissary,  objected  to  the 
proceeding  as  a  violation  of  the  one  hundred  twenty-second 
canon  of  the  ecclesiastical  law  of  the  Church  of  England.^ 
Thereupon  Dawson  wrote  to  his  diocesan  for  advice,  urgently 
soliciting  a  commission  as  an  efficacious  protection  against  such 
encroachments  in  the  future,  but  adding,  in  justice  to  the  gov- 
ernor and  council,  that  they  had  been  far  from  desirous  of  exer- 
cising any  such  power,  and  would  much  rather  have  seen  it 
delegated  to  him  as  commissary.  The  governor  also  wrote  to 
the  bishop  to  explain  that  he  would  not  have  interfered  in  the 
matter  had  the  commissary  been  possessed  of  the  proper  author- 
ity ;  at  the  same  time  he  expressed  a  hope  that,  since  the  com- 
missary held  no  commission  for  erecting  a  spiritual  court,  his 
Lordship  would  approve  the  deprivation  of  Brunskill  by  the 
governor  and  council,  for  otherwise  there  would  be  no  means 
of  executing  justice  in  such  cases.  Moreover,  he  justified  his 
r  act  by  a  well-known  precedent.^  The  bishop  evidently  sus- 
tained the  governor  in  his  proceeding  ;  at  any  rate,  any  future 
discipline  of  the  clergy  was  undertaken,  if  at  all,  by  the  lay,  not 
by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities. 

In  summing  up  the  events  relating  to  the  Bishop  of  London's 
colonial  jurisdiction  during  the  time  of  Sherlock's  incumbency 
of  that  see,  we  strike  the  key-note  of  his  policy  by  repeating 
what  has  been  so  often  said  already :  that,  except  for  a  certain 
oversight  in  matters  of  political  and  constitutional  significance, 
it  was  marked  by  an  almost  total  disregard  of  American  eccle- 
siastical affairs,  and  by  a  persistent  endeavor  to  further  the 
establishment  of  bishops  in  the  colonies.^     His  efforts,  in  con- 

^  It  is  also  tolerably  evident  that  they  did  not  want  such  a  precedent  of  lay 
control  over  the  clergy  to  be  established. 

^Dawson  wrote  two  letters  to  Sherlock,  July  9,  1757  (Perry,  Historical 
Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  451-454).  Dinwiddle's  letter  is  dated  September  12, 
1757  (^Ibid.  454-458)  ;  he  had  announced  the  decision  of  the  governor  and 
council  to  Brunskill's  parish,  May  20,  1757. 

*  In  view  of  this  fact,  it  is  amusing  to  read  the  following  extract  from  a 
fiineral  sermon  on  Sherlock,  by  Dr.  Nicolls,  master  of  the  Temple:  "He  ex- 
tended his  care  to  the  parts  abroad,"  said  the  preacher,  •*  and  began  a  corre- 
spondence there,  which  would  have  been  very  usefiill  to  the  Church,  if  his 
health  had  permitted  him  to  carry  it  on  "  {^London  Chronicle,  January  20,  1762), 


138  SHERLOCK'S  POLICY. 

junction  with  those  of  his  colleagues  on  the  bench,  notably  of 
Bishop  Seeker,  the  later  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  came  into 
conflict  with  the  increasing  tendency  toward  independence  in 
church  and  state  which  was  growing  more  and  more  evident 
in  the  colonies,  and  led  to  those  episcopal  controversies  which 
it  will  be  the  purpose  of  the  next  few  chapters  to  examine. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE   MAYHEW   CONTROVERSY,    1763-1765. 

It  was  not  long  after  Cutler,  Johnson,  and  their  companions 
passed  over  from  the  Presbyterian  to  the  Episcopal  communion, 
before  discussions  upon  the  relative  merits  of  the  two  systems 
of  government  and  worship  began  to  agitate  New  England.^ 
At  first  of  a  purely,  or  at  least  of  a  mainly,  theological  charac- 
ter, they  soon  assumed  a  more  and  more  ecclesiastico-political 
tinge,  until  they  finally  culminated  in  the  celebrated  controver- 
sies of  the  decade  1760- 1770. 

The  origin  of  these  disputations  seems  to  have  been  due  to 
the  apprehension  and  opposition  which  the  New  England  clergy 
of  the  Independent  persuasions  manifested  toward  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Episcopal  church  into  the  province.  The  position 
of  the  majority  of  the  New  Englanders  toward  the  Church  of 
England  system  is  well  expressed  in  the  words  of  one  of  the 
best-known  contemporaries :  "  Let  all  mankind  know,"  he  says, 
"  that  we  came  into  the  wilderness,  because  we  would  worship 
God  without  that  Episcopacy,  that  contmoft  prayer,  and  those 
unwarrantable  ceremonies,  with  which  tJie  land  of  our  fore  fathers' 
sepulchres  has  been  defiled ;  we  came  hither  because  we  would 
have  our  posterity  settled  under  the  pure  and  full  dispensations 
of  the  gospel,  defended  by  rulers  that  should  be  of  our  selves.'''^ 
Starting  out  in  such  an  attitude  of  mind,  and  with  the  history 
of  the  events  of  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  deeply 
graven  in  their  memories,  it  was  natural  that  they  should  regard 

^  For  a  complete  bibliography  of  the  Episcopal  controversy  in  New  England, 
and  the  questions  relating  to  it,  see  Foote,  Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  ii.  ch. 
xvii,  particularly  p.  274.  Such  of  the  pamphlets  as  are  of  a  purely  theological 
nature  are  not  incorporated  in  the  bibliography  appended  to  the  present 
work. 

^Cotton  Mather,  Magnalia  (Hartford,  1820),  vol.  i.  book  iii.  pt.  i.  §  vii. 
219;  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  143. 


I40  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

as  a  direct  menace  to  the  freedom  and  independence  of  their 
institutions,  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  every  step  which 
brought  nearer  to  them  that  form  of  worship  which  repre- 
sented the  dreaded  Anglican  establishment. 

I  As  early  as  1734  Dr.  Colman  wrote  to  Bishop  Gibson  in 
behalf  of  the  associated  ministers  of  Hampshire  County,  and 
enclosed  a  petition  from  them  protesting  against  the  practice 
of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  sending  its  mis- 
sionaries to  New  England  instead  of  to  other  places  where  they 

'  were  more  needed.^  But  the  first  really  significant  landmark 
in  the  always  latent  hostility  between  the  two  parties  was  an 
animated   controversy  concerning  the  validity  of   Presbyterian 

.  ordination,  which  came  to  a  head  in  the  years  1747-175 1.^  The 
immediate  occasion  for  the  outbreak  seems  to  have  been  given 
by  a  sermon  preached  by  the  Reverend  Noah  Hobart  at  Stam- 

•  ford,  Connecticut,  December  13,  1746.  Certain  aspersions  which 
the  preacher  made  against  the  Episcopalians^  brought  forth  early 
in  the  following  year  an  answer  from  the  Reverend  James  Wet- 

1  Colman's  letter,  dated  September  13,  1734,  is  printed  in  Turell,  Life  of 
Colman,  141-143.  The  letter  of  the  Hampshire  ministers,  dated  September  10, 
1734,  is  printed  as  the  second  number  by  the  "Anatomist"  in  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Gazette,  September  15,  1768.  David  Humphreys  answered  this  letter 
in  behalf  of  the  Society.  The  gist  of  his  argument  was  (i)  that  the  mission- 
aries were  sent  to  places  where  there  were  many  people  who  did  not  care  to 
worship  with  the  dissenters  ;  (2)  that  the  places  to  which  they  were  sent  were 
published  in  the  Society's  annual  Abstracts,  and  that,  since  large  numbers 
of  people  continued  their  subscriptions,  it  was  evident  that  the  procedure  of 
the  Society  was  not  regarded  as  a  violation  of  the  charter.  The  complaints 
begun  by  the  Hampshire  association  of  ministers  in  1734  were  taken  up  by 
the  Independent  Reflector  and  the  Watch  Tower,  published  in  New  York  in 
1752  and  1753  respectively. 

2  There  is  a  good  account  of  these  controversies  in  Foote,  Annals  of  King's 
Chapel,  ii.  247  ff.  The  account  given  in  the  text  is  based  on  an  actual  exami- 
nation of  the  original  writings.  References  to  the  earlier  Checkley  controversy 
may  be  found  above,  pp.  66,  67.  Though  it  is  sometimes  said  that  the  Epis- 
copal controversy  originated  in  the  discussion  which  Checkley  stirred  up,  the 
evidence  seems  hardly  to  warrant  the  statement. 

^  Chiefly  his  assertion  that  it  was  unnecessary,  and  therefore  a  misappropri- 
ation of  the  charitable  funds,  for  the  Society  to  send  missionaries  into  New 
England,  where  the  Gospel  was  already  sufficiently  taught.  This  was  pre- 
cisely the  contention  of  the  Hampshire  association  of  ministers. 


HOB  ART'S  ''SERIOUS  ADDRESS:'  141 

more,  rector  of  the  parish  of  Rye,  and  missionary  of  the  Society, 
in  an  open  letter  to  a  friend. ^  Thereupon  Hobart  repHed  with 
A  Serious  Address  to  the  Members  of  the  Episcopal  Separation 
in  New  Enghi7id,  occasioned  by  Mr.  Wctmore's  Vindication  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  Connecticitt?  The  aim  of  this  work 
was  to  "  fix  and  settle"  three  points  :  (i)  "  Whether  the  Inhab- 
itants of  the  British  Plantations  in  America,  those  of  New-Eng- 
land in  particular,  are  obliged,  ijt  Point  of  Duty,  by  the  Laws  of 
God  or  Man,  to  conform  to  the  Prelatic  Church,  by  Law  estab- 
lished in  the  South  Part  of  Great-Britain;"  (2)  "Whether 
it  be  PROPER  iji  Point  of  Prudefice  for  those  who  are  already 
settled  in  such  Churches  as  have  so  long  subsisted  in  A^ew- 
England,  to  forsake  them  and  go  over  to  that  Communion ;'' 
(3)  "Whether  it  be  lawful  for  particular  Members  of  New- 
English  Churches  to  separate  from  them,  and  join  in  Commun- 
ion with  the  Episcopal  Assemblies  in  the  Country." 

These  propositions  give  one  a  tolerably  clear  idea  of  the  aim 
and  scope  of  Hobart's  pamphlet.  Although  it  would  be  hardly 
worth  while  to  consider  in  detail  its  one  hundred  and  thirty  odd 
pages  of  theological  polemics,  perhaps  a  brief  summary  of  some 
of  its  main  arguments  will  not  be  out  of  place.  Under  the  first 
head  the  author  discusses  the  question  whether  the  Church  of 
England  establishment  extends  to  America,  and  decides  it  in  the 
negative.^  Passing  to  the  second  point,  he  comes  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  great  number  of  "  unnecessary  ecclesiastical 
Officers  "  required  by  the  Church  of  England  system,  and  the 
great  expense  involved  in  supporting  them,  make  it  imprudent 
for  those  of  his  persuasion  to  submit  to  that  system.  The  argu- 
ment which  he  here  employs  is  exceedingly  utilitarian,  and 
sounds  strangely  modern.  For  example,  in  one  place  he  says  : 
"  A  wise  Man  would  chuse  such  a  Constitution  in  Church  or 
State,   wherein  the  great  Ends  of  Society  are  effectually  an- 

^  It  was  published  at  Boston  in  1747,  under  the  title  A  Vindication  of  the 
Professors  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Connecticuit,  against  the  Invectives 
contained  in  a  Sertnon  preached  at  Stamford  by  Mr.  Noah  Hobart,  December 
13,  1746. 

"^  Boston,  1748. 

8  Serious  Address,  5-44. 


142  THE  MAYHEVV  CONTROVERSY. 

swered,  with  as  little  Burden  and  Charge  as  may  be  to  the  Com- 
munity.^ Another  reason  which  he  urges  against  the  prudence 
of  conforming  to  the  Church  of  England,  is  that  such  a  step 
would  tend  to  bring  the  colonies  into  an  '*  unnecessary  and 
hurtful  State  of  Dependence."  By  dependence,  however,  he 
means  ecclesiastical  dependence ;  for  he  says  very  decidedly 
that  the  colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  dependent  upon 
the  mother  country  in  all  civil  affairs.^  Besides,  he  argues, 
such  a  political  relation  is  advantageous ;  but  a  state  of  eccle- 
siastical dependence,  carrying  with  it  no  attendant  advantages 
in  the  way  of  trade  or  civil  privileges,  would  certainly  not 
be  beneficial  to  the  colonies,  and  might  be  just  the  reverse. 
Evidently,  the  idea  that  civil  independence  is  a  necessary  ac- 
companiment of  religious  liberty,  had  not  yet  been  developed. 
Without  following  Hobart's  argument  upon  this  head  any  far- 
ther, we  may  point  out  that  he  regards  conformity  to  the  Church 
of  England  to  be  imprudent  for  many  reasons :  first,  on  the 
ground  of  expense;  secondly,  because  of  the  tyrannical  disci- 
pline exercised  by  that  church ;  thirdly,  because  of  its  arbitrary 
power  in  appointing  and  removing  ministers  ;  and,  finally,  be- 
cause such  conformity  would  lead  to  the  destruction  of  prac- 
tical religion.^ 

In  the  latter  part  of  his  book,  Hobart  touches  on  the  subject 
of  bishops.  Apropos  of  the  fact  that  the  Church  of  England  in 
America  is  suffering  from  an  alarming  lack  of  disciphne,  he 
considers  the  suggestion  made  by  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  in  his 
sermon  before  the  Society  *  (a  suggestion  which  had  been  taken 
up  and  repeated  over  and  over  by  the  pro-episcopal  party  on 
both  sides  of  the  water),  namely,  that  this  defect  could  be  reme- 
died by  establishing  bishops.  His  answer  to  this  proposition  is 
very  sane,  and  quite  to  the  point.  "  For  my  Part,"  he  says,  "  I 
can't  see  that  the  Bishop  himself  has,  according  to  the  Practice  of 

1  Serious  Address,  49. 

2 "  Whatever  the  Enemies  of  the  Plantations  may  report  at  Home,  of  the 
Danger  of  their  casting  off  their  Dependence,  I  believe  it  may  with  Truth  be 
affirmed,"  says  he,  "  that  there  is  not  a  Man  of  Sense  in  them  all,  but  what  is 
willing,  nay,  would  chuse  to  continue  in  this  State"  (^Ibid.  64-65). 

^/bid.  78. 

^  Printed  in  the  Society's  Abstract,  1741,  p.  32.     Cf.  above,  p.  109. 


THE  ''CALM  AND  DISPASSIONATE   VINDICATION.''      143 

the  Church  of  England,  anything  to  do  with  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church ;  this  is  managed  in  the  spiritual  Court,  by  a  Lay-CJian- 
cellor,  appointed,  indeed,  by  the  Bishop,  and  acting  in  his  Name, 
but  not  under  his  Direction,  nor  liable  to  be  controled  by  him."  ^ 
This  is  very  true ;  it  is,  indeed,  hard  to  see  how  a  bishop  of 
the  character  advocated  by  Seeker  and  those  of  his  way  of 
thinking  could  have  exercised  a  discipline  any  more  efficacious 
than  that  already  exercised  by  the  commissaries. 

Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  Hobart's  argument.  From  his 
standpoint  the  whole  course  of  his  reasoning  is  logical,  and, 
for  the  time  in  which  he  lived,  admirably  calm  and  considerate 
of  the  feelings  of  his  opponents. 

The  next  step  in  the  progress  of  the  controversy  was  marked 
by  the  appearance,  in  the  following  year,  of  A  Calm  and  Dis- 
passionate Vindication  of  the  Professors  of  the  Chnrch  of  Eng- 
land, purporting,  as  the  title-page  further  informs  the  reader, 
to  be  directed  "  against  the  Abusive  Misrepresentations  and 
falacious  Argumentations  of  Mr.  Noah  Hobart."  The  body  of 
the  work  was  written  by  John  Beach,  but  was  provided  with  a 
preface  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Johnson,  and  with  an  appendix 
containing  "  Vindications  "  by  Wetmore  and  Henry  Caner.  In 
reply  to  the  charge  that  the  Church  of  England  has  no  disci- 
pline. Beach  admits  that  its  system  is  imperfect  for  want  of  a 
bishop,  a  lack  which  he  hopes  will  soon  be  filled.  Then, 
passing  over,  without  any  adequate  refutation,  the  argument 
of  Hobart  cited  above,  he  contends  that  the  discipline  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  America  is,  in  spite  of  its  imperfections, 
better  than  that  of  the  Presbyterian  bodies.^  This  view  of  the 
comparative  merits  of  the  respective  systems  of  discipline  of 
the  two  bodies  is  strangely  optimistic,  and  hardly  accords  with 

^  Serious  Address,  103. 

^  "  Our  Bishop,"  says  he,  "  has  a  Patent  from  the  King  to  exercise  Jurisdic- 
tion in  this  Countr)' :  He  appoints  Commissaries  in  each  Government ;  who 
can  call  any  clergyman  to  account  for  misdemeanors,  and,  taking  to  his  assist- 
ance the  neighboring  clergy,  can  suspend  him.  And  if,  after  the  Bishop  has 
silenced  him,  he  still  persists  to  officiate  as  a  member  of  the  Church,  the 
King's  officers  may  be  obliged  to  apprehend  and  imprison  him.  Because  the 
Bishop  is  the  King's  minister  as  well  as  Christ's,  whereas  Yours  is  neither, 
I  fear"  {Calm  and  Dispassionate  Vindication^  37~3^)' 


144  THE  MAYHEIV  CONTROVERSY. 

the  opinions  on  the  same  subject  usually  put  forth  in  appeals 
for  an  American  episcopate.  Scattered  through  the  book  are 
several  rather  striking  examples  of  the  author's  calmness  and 
dispassionateness,  as,  for  instance,  the  following  sentence : 
"  Mr.  Hobart  has  raked  together  a  large  heap  of  vulgar  trash, 
which  he  calls  new,  because  nobody  was  ever  so  weak  or  child- 
ish as  to  put  it  in  print  before ;  so  he  tells  us  of  the  danger  of 
tithes,  if  the  Church  should  prevail  in  New  England."  ^ 

Two  years  later,  Hobart  wrote  in  reply  to  the  above  vindica- 
tion :  A  Second  Address  to  the  Members  of  the  Episcopal  Sepa- 
ration in  Nezv-England  occasioned  by  the  Exceptions  made  to  the 
former,  by  Dr.  Johnso?i,  Mr.  Wctmore,  Mr.  Beach,  and  Mr.  Caner, 
to  which  was  appended  a  letter  from  Moses  Dickinson  "  in  An- 
swer to  some  Things  Mr.  Wetmore  has  charged  him  with."  In  this 
second  address,  which  goes  over  much  the  same  ground  as  its 
predecessor,  one  of  the  few  new  points  which  the  author  takes 
up  is  the  question  of  the  establishment,  in  opposition  to  the 
position  held  by  Douglass  in  his  Summary?-  A  reply  which 
Beach  wrote  in  the  same  year  to  Hobart's  Second  Address 
brought  this  particular  controversy  to  a  close  ;  ^  but  several 
things  go  to  show  that  there  was  at  least  a  measure  of  continuity 
between  this  and  the  later  Mayhew  controversy.*  At  all  events, 
raising  as  it  did  many  of  the  questions  later  brought  up  for 
consideration,  it  was  certainly  a  forerunner  of  that  stirring  dis- 
cussion. 

Even  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  Hobart  controversy,  many 
of  the  New  Englanders  had  awakened  to  what  they  considered 

1  Calm  and  Dispassionate  Vindication,  38. 

2  William  Douglass,  A  Summary,  Historical  and  Political,  of  the  First 
Planting,  Progressive  Improvements,  and  Present  State  of  the  British  Settle- 
ments in  North-America  (see  particularly  the  edition  of  1755,  ii.  120,  note). 
Hobart  bases  his  argument  on  citations  from  the  letter  of  the  lords  justices  to 
Governor  Dummer,  written  in  1725,  and  from  that  of  Bishop  Gibson  to  Dr. 
Colman,  May  24,  1735  {Second  Address,  37-38).     Cf.  above,  p.  128. 

^  Foote,  Annals  of  King'' s  Chapel,  ii.  250-251. 

*  For  example,  a  letter  from  Bishop  Seeker  to  Dr.  Johnson,  July  19,  1759 
(Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson,  Appendix,  178-179),  from  which  it  appears  that 
Johnson  had  been  sending  him  the  various  contributions  made  by  both  sides 
to  the  discussion.     Both  were  parties  to  the  Mayhew  controversy. 


THE   CAUSES   OF  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY.         1 45 

to  be  the  dangers  which  might  be  apprehended  from  the  intro- 
duction of  an  Episcopal  hierarchy  into  their  midst.  A  good 
example  of  the  most  extravagant  expressions  of  such  fears  may 
be  found  in  a  sermon  preached  by  Jonathan  Mayhew,  January 
30,  1750,  and  afterward  pubHshed,  "  People  have  no  security," 
said  the  preacher,  "  against  being  unmercifully  priest-ridden  but 
by  keeping  all  imperious  bishops,  and  other  clergymen  who 
love  to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage,  from  getting  their  feet  into 
the  stirrup  at  all."  ^  Opinions  of  this  stamp  were,  however, 
probably  not  widely  prevalent  at  this  time ;  ^  it  was  only  with 
the  outbreak  of  the  Mayhew  agitation  in  the  early  sixties  that 
the  community  at  large  became  thoroughly  roused. 

Like  all  historical  phenomena,  the  Mayhew  controversy, 
although  it  had  an  immediate  and  a  specific  occasion,  was 
really  the  outcome  of  causes  slowly  developing  in  an  environ- 
ment favorable  to  their  growth.  As  has  been  noticed,  there 
had  been  for  many  years,  among  the  Independents,  evidences 
of  a  strong  hostility  to  the  extension  of  the  episcopal  system 
in  the  colonies,  or  at  least  to  the  introduction  of  bishops.  This 
opposition,  dormant  so  long  as  there  was  nothing  to  call  it  forth, 
would  naturally  spring  up  whenever  there  seemed  to  be  any 
indication  that  the  hopes  of  their  opponents  were  likely  to  be 

^  Mellen  Chamberlain, /<?/?«  Adams.,  30. 

2  Foote  {Annals  of  King's  Chapel.,  ii.  251)  thinks  that  the  following  letter 
from  Secretary  Willard  to  Governor  Phips  (Shirley  was  absent  in  England 
from  1749  to  1753),  written  December  12,  1750,  expressed  the  more  sober 
sentiment  of  the  community :  "  As  to  the  Project  of  sending  Bishops  into 
America  (the  principal  Subject  of  your  Letter),  I  need  say  but  little  in  that 
Matter  considering  how  fully  and  freely  I  expressed  myself  in  a  Letter  I  wrote 
to  your  Excy.  in  June  last,  which  lest  it  should  have  miscarried,  I  now  send 
you  a  Copy  of  I  can  only  add  that  the  universal  dissatisfaction  to  that 
Scheme  among  Persons  of  our  Communion  is  nothing  lessened  from  the 
Proposals  your  Excy.  was  pleased  to  send  me  with  your  Letter  before  men- 
tioned, of  the  Restrictions  therein  contained  as  to  the  Exercise  of  the  Epis- 
copal Function  here,  those  Persons  expecting  that  if  once  Bishops  should  be 
settled  in  America,  it  would  be  judged  for  some  Reasons  or  other  necessary  to 
extend  their  Jurisdiction  equally  to  what  that  Order  of  Men  are  possessed  of 
in  Great  Britain :  However,  It  is  supposed  our  Sentiments  in  these  Matters 
will  have  but  little  Influence  w*  those  Gentlemen  in  England  who  have  the 
Management  of  this  Affair." 


146  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

realized.  Such  an  occasion  came  with  the  approach  of  the 
peace  which  was  to  end  the  Seven  Years'  War.  Up  to  this 
time  the  Enghsh  government  had  been  too  much  occupied  with 
its  foreign  relations  to  attend  to  anything  else,  but  with  the  ces- 
sation of  hostilities  it  would  be  likely  to  have  time  and  oppor- 
tunity to  give  attention  to  domestic  and  colonial  concerns. 
Thomas  Seeker,  now  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  had,  it  was  well 
known,  long  had  at  heart  the  matter  of  the  American  episcopate, 
and  had  often  expressed  the  intention  of  taking  the  first  favor- 
able opportunity  to  press  it  upon  the  attention  of  the  English 
government.  The  time  now  seemed  ripe  for  the  realization  of 
his  purpose  ;  accordingly  the  apprehensions  of  the  Independents 
and  the  hopes  of  the  Episcopalians  were  proportionally  excited.^ 
Such  was  the  state  of  things  when  the  death  of  the  Reverend 
Ebenezer  Miller,  missionary  at  Braintree  of  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel,  occurred,  February  11,  1763.  Shortly 
after  his  decease  there  appeared  a  newspaper  article  attacking 
the  policy  of  the  Society  in  sending  missionaries  into  New 
England,  where  they  were  not  needed.  In  reply  to  this  the 
Reverend  East  Apthorp,  missionary  at  Cambridge,  wrote  a  series 
of  Considerations  on  the  Institution  and  Cojidnct  of  the  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts.  There- 
upon Jonathan  Mayhew,  a  prominent  Congregational  minister 
in  Boston,  published  his  Observations  on  the  Charter  and  Conduct 
of  the  Society,  in  the  course  of  which  he  not  only  attacked  the 
Society  for  sending  missionaries  into  New  England,^  but  also 

1  Cf.  Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson,  113-114.  The  same  author  (pp.  111-113) 
describes  the  origin  and  external  history  of  the  controversy.  A  good  account 
written  from  the  Puritan  standpoint  may  be  found  in  Alden  Bradford,  Life  of 
Mayhew,  240-248.  Porteus  {Lfe  of  Seeker,  60),  describing  the  controversy 
from  the  point  of  view  of  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  characterizes 
the  opposition  of  the  "Dissenters"  in  England  and  America  as  based  upon 
"  very  unreasonable  and  groundless  Jealousies  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
its  Governors."  Cf.  Bradford  {Lfe  of  Mayhew,  242),  who  says  that  there 
was  just  cause  to  fear  that  the  English  wanted  to  "episcopize"  New  England, 
and  that  the  "  High-Tory  "  party  in  the  mother  country  agreed  to  gain  control 
of  the  colonies  in  ecclesiastical  and  civil  affairs.  For  a  modern  account  of  the 
controversy,  see  Foote,  Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  ii.  ch.  xvii. 

2  On  the  title-page  of  the  Observations  is  a  quotation  from  Paul  to  the 
Galatians,  describing  the  Society''s  missionaries  as  "  Brethren  unawares  brought 


MAYHEWS  '-observations:'  147 

took  occasion  to  censure  the  proposed  scheme  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  an  American  episcopate.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the 
agitation  becomes  of  interest  to  us.^ 

This  pamphlet  of  Mayhew's  appeared  in  1763.  The  author 
sets  out  by  attempting  to  prove  that  the  Society  for  Propagating 
the  Gospel  has  long  had  "  a  formal  design  to  root  out  Presby- 
terianism  "  and  to  establish  episcopacy  and  bishops  in  the  col- 
onies, and  that,  in  pursuance  of  this  plan,  it  has  in  a  great 
measure  neglected  the  important  ends  of  its  institution.^  In 
support  of  his  position  he  cites  several  selections  from  the  pub- 
lications of  the  Society.^     His  conclusion  is  that  New  England, 

in,  who  come  in  privily  to  spy  out  our  Liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus, 
that  they  might  bring  us  into  bondage  :  To  whom  we  gave  place  by  subjec- 
tion, no,  not  for  an  hour ;  that  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  might  continue  with 

YOU." 

^  There  were  in  all  four  replies  to  Mayhew's  Ol?se?-vatwns,  three  of  which 
came  from  America.  Two  of  these  were  short  and  unimportant,  one  of  them 
appearing  at  Portsmouth  and  the  other  at  Newport.  The  third,  which  Brad- 
ford (Life  of  Mayhew,  279-280)  calls  a  "  smart  rather  than  an  able  perform- 
ance," was  published  anonymously,  under  the  title  A  Candid  Examination  of 
Dr.  Mayhew's  Observations.  The  authorship  has  been  ascribed  both  to 
Henry  Caner  and  Dr.  Johnson,  but  the  weight  of  evidence  seems  to  give  it  to 
the  former.  The  English  publication,  an  Answer  to  the  Observations.,  which 
also  appeared  anonymously,  was  later  learned  to  have  been  written  by  a 
person  no  less  important  than  Arclibishop  Seeker.  Other  noteworthy  con- 
tributions to  the  discussion  were  a  Defence  by  Mayhew  of  his  own  Observa- 
tions, and  a  final  Review  of  the  whole  controversy  by  East  Apthorp.  See 
Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  148  ff. ;  Perry,  Afjierican 
Episcopal  Chnrch,  i.  411  ff. 

'^Observations,  103. 

8  For  example :  '•  The  want  of  a  Bishop  or  suffragan  in  those  parts  was 
often  complained  of  And  this  matter  has  been  carried  as  far  as  the  diffi- 
culties in  it  would  hitherto  allow,  and  is  under  such  farther  solicitation  and 
advances,  that  we  hope  shortly  to  see  a  happy  success  of  it "  {Ibid.  105,  citing 
Account  of  the  Society,  1706,  p.  74).  And  again  :  "  It  having  been  frequently 
represented  to  the  Society,  that  there  is  great  want  of  a  Bishop  to  govern 
those  missionaries,  whom  the  Society  has  or  shall,  from  time  to  time,  send 
over  to  New-England,  —  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  clergy  in  those  and  the 
adjacent  colonies ;  and  to  ordain  others,  and  to  confirm  .  .  .  ;  this  matter 
has  been  most  seriously  considered  of,  and  is  yet  depending  before  the  Society, 
and  in  the  mean  time,  and  till  they  can  bring  it  to  bear,  they  are  looking  out 
for  the  best  and  most  commodious  place,  —  to  fix  the  See  for  the  said  Bishop  " 
(Ibid,  citing  the  Society's  Abstract,  1711,  pp.  27-28). 


148  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

and  indeed  all  the  colonies,  have  been  from  the  beginning  of  the 
century  in  danger  from  the  Society's  episcopizing  influence.^ 

Passing  over  the  endless  personalities  and  questions  of  purely 
theological  import  which  abound  in  this  as  in  all  other  contro- 
versial pamphlets  of  the  period,  let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the 
substance  of  Mayhew's  argument.  \  Of  the  truth  of  his  assertion 
that  the  Society  had  from  the  very  moment  of  its  inception 
striven  to  push  the  cause  of  the  episcopate,  there  can  be  no 
doubt ;  on  the  other  hand,  his  further  contention  that  such  had 
been  its  only,  or  its  chief,  aim  is  open  to  question.  That  its 
missionary  efforts  had  often  been  primarily  directed  toward  the 
advancement  of  its  own  church  is  perhaps  true,  but  it  would  be 
hard  to  find  a  church  which  has  not  proceeded  along  the  same 
lines  ever  since  missionary  work  began.  Rightly  or  wrongly, 
the  Episcopalians  believed  —  and  in  this  they  were  not  alone 
among  the  religious  bodies  of  that  or  of  any  other  period  before 
or  since  —  that  their  own  method  of  worship  was  the  one  most 
in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God.  Conceiving,  moreover,  that 
a  hierarchy  was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  existence  of  their 
system  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  they  sought  to  establish  it  in 
America,  as  they  did  in  any  other  place  or  country  where  their 
church  was  represented.  Whether  it  was  wise  to  push  the 
matter  in  the  colonies  at  this  time  is  another  question ;  whether 
the  Independents  were  justified  in  their  suspicions  of  what  might 
result  from  the  rule  of  bishops  once  established  is,  in  this  con- 
nection, equally  beside  the  point.  The  fact  is  that  the  earliest 
relations  of  the  Independents  with  the  Church  of  England  had 
made  them  desirous,  and  justly  so,  to  keep  as  far  as  possible 
from  the  sphere  of  her  influence ;  and,  whenever  they  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  establishment,  the  memory  of  this  early 
experience  came  into  their  minds  and  warped  their  judgments. 

^ "  The  affair  of  Bishops  has  lately  been,  and  probably  now  is  in  agitation 
in  England.  .  .  .  And  it  is  supposed  by  many,  that  a  certain  siiperb  edifice 
in  a  neighbouring  town,  was  even  from  the  foundation  designed  for  the  Palace 
of  one  of  the  httmble  sticcessors  of  the  apostles.  .  .  .  What  other  new  world," 
he  asks,  "remains  as  a  sanctuary  for  us  from  our  oppressions,  in  case  of  need? 
Where  is  the  Columbus  to  explore  one  for,  and  pilot  us  to  it,  before  we  are 
consumed  by  the  flames,  or  deluged  in  a  flood  of  episcopacy  ?"  {Observa- 
tions, 107,  156.) 


SUSP/C/ONS  AS  TO   THE  SOCIETY'S  MOTIVES.  149 

Jonathan  May  hew  was  a  true  Puritan  ;  and  it  was  the  limitations 
that  encompassed  him  ipso  facto  which  caused  him,  although  pro- 
ceeding from  premises  that  were  in  the  main  true,  to  draw  con- 
clusions concerning  the  mainspring  and  motives  of  the  action  of 
the  Society  which  from  the  evidence  before  him  were  hardly 
tenable.    / 

Mayhew's  pamphlet  called  forth  great  applause  from  his 
fellow-beUevers,  and  contributed  much  to  heighten  the  suspi- 
cions already  latent  in  their  minds.  The  effect  extended  to  the 
mother  country  also.  For  example,  Dr.  Lardner  of  London,  in 
a  letter  written  July  18,  1763,  in  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt 
of  a  copy  of  the  Observations,  commented  on  the  strong  proba- 
bility that  bishops  would  soon  be  sent  to  America,  and  echoed 
the  suspicions  of  the  Society  which  Mayhew  had  expressed.^ 
"  The  present  Archbishop  of  York,  then  bishop  of  St.  Asaph's," 
he  says,  "  at  Bow  Street  church,  in  his  sermon  to  the  Society, 
.  .  .  told  his  congregation  without  reserve,  that  the  business  of 
that  society  was  not  so  much  to  increase  the  number  of  Chris- 
tians by  conversion  of  the  Indians,  as  to  unite  tJie  subjects  of 
Great  Britain  in  one  comniuniony  ^  This  quotation,  which,  torn 
from  the  context,  appears  to  mean  more  than  it  really  does, 
hardly  justifies  the  assertion  made  by  the  author  of  the  Annals 
of  Kings  Chapel  that  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 
"seemed  to  have  been  turned  from  the  true  objects  of  mission- 
ary work  into  a  means  for  undermining  and  ultimately  destroy- 
ing the  system  of  Independency  itself."  ^  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
whatever  intentions  the  Society  had  as  to  the  extension  of  epis- 
copacy in  the  colonies  were  held  at  least  as  strongly  in  the  first 
years  of  its  existence  as  later,  indeed  one  might  almost  say 
more  strongly.  The  important  thing  was  that  the  attitude  of 
mind  of  the  Independents  had  changed,  and,  as  the  breach  with 
the  mother  country  drew  nearer  and  nearer,  led  them  more  and 

^  Bradford.  Life  of  Mayhew,  269. 

^  Foote,  Atitials  of  King's  Chapel,  ii.  251,  citing  Bradford,  Life  of  Mayhew, 
271. 

^  Foote's  whole  account  {Annals,  ii.  ch.  xvii.,  "  Episcopacy  and  the  May- 
hew Controversy  ")  relies  too  much  on  Dr.  George  E.  Ellis  to  be  strictly 
impartial.  It  is,  to  a  considerable  extent,  made  up  of  quotations  from  a  manu- 
script lecture  by  Dr.  Ellis  on  the  "  Episcopal  controversy." 


I50  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

more  to  suspect  the  aims  and  to  question  the  motives  of  the 
Society;  whether  justly  or  unjustly,  the  historical  effect  was 
the  same. 

Mayhew's  Observations  was  answered  in  the  same  year  by 
A  Candid  Examination,  presumably  written  by  Henry  Caner, 
rector  of  King's  Chapel,  Boston.  A  detailed  examination  of  this 
pamphlet  is  hardly  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  this  study.  It 
is  taken  up  mainly  with  a  discussion  of  Mayhew's  character  in 
general  as  shown  in  his  works,  of  the  motives  actuating  the  con- 
duct of  the  Society,  and  finally  with  an  attempt  to  prove  that 
the  Independent  churches  of  New  England  are  not  established, 
but  that  the  Church  of  England  is  the  established  form  of 
worship  in  the  colonies.-^ 

Another  reply  to  Mayhew  was  that  of  the  Reverend  Arthur 
Browne  of  Portsmouth,  published  also  in  1763  under  the  title 
Remarks  on  Dr.  Mayhew's  hicidental  Reflections  relative  to  the 
Chnrch  of  England,  as  contaijied  in  his  Observations,  etc.  This 
effusion  is  interesting  upon  two  grounds :  first,  as  an  illustration 
of  the  methods  of  argumentation  employed  by  a  class  of  men  of 
that  time  who,  as  Ruskin  fitly  says,  mistook  pugnacity  for 
piety ;  ^  in  the  second  place,  for  the  charming  frankness  of  the 

1  In  support  of  his  position  the  author  cites  several  acts  of  Parliament  — 
particularly  the  Act  of  Union,  and  also  a  letter  to  the  Reverend  Thomas 
Foxcroft,  published  in  1745,  in  which  the  following  statement  occurs  :  "The 
King  (under  God)  is  the  supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England,  and  if  he 
had  not  appointed  an  ordinary  over  New-England,  it  would  have  remained 
under  his  own  immediate  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  as  supreme  head.  But  it 
is  well  known  that  his  late  Majesty  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  did  impower 
the  Bishop  of  London,  under  the  great  seal,  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the 
clergy  in  the  plantations,  which  were  not  in  any  Diocess,  but  remained  under 
the  immediate  jurisdiction  of  the  King"  {Candid  Examination,  39). 

2  See,  for  example,  a  passage  in  which  Browne  alludes  to  the  "  fanatic  ravings 
of  his  [Mayhew's]  predecessors  the  Oliverian  holders-forth,  whose  spittle  he 
hath  lick'd  up,  and  coughed  it  out  again,  with  some  addition  of  his  own  filth 
and  phlegm  "  (^Remarks,  24).  Compare  with  this  an  "  Advertisement "  of  "  a 
Certain  Jonathan  Mayhew,  an  independent  Holder-forth  in  Boston^''  a  broad- 
side that  appeared  at  about  the  same  time.  Two  extracts  from  it  are  especially 
markworthy :  "  And  if  he  was  treated  according  to  his  demerits,  a  strong- toed 
Shoe,  or  an  Oaken  Plant  [plank?],  well  applied,  would  be  quite  gentle  and 
seasonable.  .  .  .  And  ...  if  the  said  Mayhew  should  print  any  more  such 
foul-mouthed  anonymous  Papers,  tending  to  vilify  Characters,"  concludes  the 


ARCHBISHOP  SECKER'S  '' ANSWERS  151 

author.  He  readily  admits  the  truth  of  the  design  charged 
to  the  Society,  that  it  is  seeking  to  settle  bishops  in  North 
America,  and  justifies  it  on  the  ground  that  bishops  are  an 
indispensable  limb  of  the  Church  of  England  system.  Indeed, 
he  adds,  those  who  had  been  complaining  of  the  irregularity  and 
want  of  discipline  among  the  Episcopalian  clergy  in  the  colonies 
ought  to  agree  to  the  necessity  of  an  episcopate  to  oversee 
their  conduct.  Regarding  Mayhew's  apprehension  that  episco- 
pacy once  firmly  established  would  tend  to  drive  out  Presbyteri- 
anism,  he  says  cheerfully :  "  If  presbytarianism,  as  he  calls  the 
prevailing  religion  of  the  country,  be  disposed  to  go  off,  and 
make  room  for  it's  betters,  let  it  go.  But  nobody  has  any 
thoughts  of  driving  it  away  by  force."  ^  Moreover,  supposing 
the  Episcopalians  come  to  a  majority  in  America,  what  of  it .-' 
In  that  case,  if  the  colonists  should  be  taxed  for  the  support  of 
bishops  and  for  official  tests,  it  would  simply  be  by  the  wish  of 
the  majority,  for  the  Episcopalians  would  be  in  the  majority.^ 
Such  opinions  as  these  could  hardly  be  reassuring  to  a  people 
jealous  to  the  last  degree  of  its  liberties  in  church  and  state ; 
but  they  were  not  sanctioned,  or  at  least  not  openly,  by  the 
majority  of  those  of  Browne's  persuasion. 

The  pamphlet  on  the  episcopal  side  which  attracted  most 
attention  was  the  so-called  Answer  to  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observa- 
tions. This  appeared  anonymously,  but  was  later  discovered  to 
have  been  written  by  Archbishop  Seeker.  The  gist  of  the 
argument  is  that  the  Church  of  England  is,  in  its  constitution, 
episcopal ;  that  it  is  already  established  in  some  of  the  colonies ; 
that  in  others  where  it  is  not  established  there  are  many  Episcopa- 
lians needing  its  ministrations  ;  that,  in  a  land  where  there  is  any 
pretence  of  toleration,  the  members  of  this  church  should  enjoy 
that  privilege  in  full  —  should  have  bishops  and  other  necessary 
officers.^  The  author  then  proceeds  to  sketch  a  plan  of  what 
the  proposed  bishops  would  be  allowed  to  do  and  what  not  to 

advertiser,  "  I  will  advertise  him  again  in  such  a  Manner,  as  that  his  whole 
Character  shall  be  known." 

^  Retnarks,  26. 

^  Ibid.  28-29. 

^Answer,  50-51. 


152  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

do,  a  plan  which  corresponds  in  its  essentials  to  that  which 
Bishop  Butler  had  drawn  up  in  1750.^  This,  he  assures  his 
readers,  is  the  real  and  only  scheme  of  episcopal  establishment 
which  has  ever  been  proposed  for  America,  "  and  whoever  hath 
heard  of  any  other,  hath  been  misinformed  through  Mistake  or 
Design.  "  ^  Bishop  Porteus,  the  biographer  of  Seeker,  remarks 
that  "  the  Strength  of  the  Argument,  as  well  as  Fairness  and 
good  Temper,  with  which  this  Answer  was  written,  had  a  con- 
siderable Effect  on  all  impartial  Men,  and  even  on  the  Doctor 
himself."^  This  statement  is,  in  the  main,  correct.  Seeker 
was  too  politic  and  conciliatory,  and  indeed  too  refined  and  cul- 
tivated a  gentleman,  to  descend  to  the  low  abuse  and  vulgar 
personalities  which  characterized  many  of  the  contributions  to 
the  discussion.  While  he  said  nothing  particularly  new,  yet  the 
moderation  of  tone  which  he  almost  habitually  employed  could 
not  but  have  had  some  influence  in  allaying  the  fiery  heat  of  the 
zealots  of  both  parties.'* 

The  many  lesser  pamphlets  which  appeared  during  the  period 
will  not  be  considered  here,  for  they  contain  little  that  was  not 
touched  upon  by  the  leading  writers.  Now  and  again,  how- 
ever, they  bring  out  an  interesting  point.      For  example,  the 

1  See  above,  pp.  122-124. 

'^Answer,  51. 

^  Life  of  Seeker,  59. 

*  Yet  Seeker  was  far  from  receiving  the  revk^ard  which  his  moderation  de- 
served. His  biographer,  Porteus,  complains  that"  Posterity  will  stand  amazed 
when  they  are  told,  that  on  this  Account  [his  advocacy  of  an  episcopate  for 
America]  his  Memory  has  been  pursued  in  Pamphlets  and  News-papers  with 
such  unrelenting  Rancour,  such  unexampled  Wantonness  of  Abuse,  as  he 
would  scarce  have  deserved,  had  he  attempted  to  eradicate  Christianity  out  of 
America,  and  to  introduce  Mahometanistn  in  its  Room"  {Life  of  Seeker,  66). 
The  following  lines,  written  by  an  Episcopalian  who  happened  to  be  opposed 
to  the  introduction  of  bishops,  bear  witness  to  the  justness  of  Porteus's  com- 
plaint :  "  As  to  Seeker,  he  is  laid  in  his  grave :  disturb  not  his  slumber.  His 
character  no  more  than  his  body,  can  endure  the  keen  question  of  the  searching 
air.  Unless  you  would  give  another  specimen  of  your  friendship,  cause  him 
not  to  stink  to  futurity  "  (Purdie  and  Dixon's  Virginia  Gazette,  July  18,  177 1). 
Nevertheless,  Seeker's  reasonableness,  ability,  and  courtesy  were  pleasantly 
acknowledged  by  his  opponent  Mayhew :  see,  for  example,  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  149,  citing  Mayhew's  Remarks,  3  ;  Perry, 
American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  412. 


MAYHEIV'S  ''DEFENCE  OF  THE  OBSERVATIONS:'     153 

author  of  a  work  entitled  The  Clawis  of  the  Church  of  England 
seriously  Examined  asks  :  "  Is  the  American  bishop  to  touch 
or  affect  no  man's  property  ?  is  he  to  make  no  alteration  in 
the  civil  condition  of  any  of  the  people  ?  on  what  then  must 
he  maintain  his  episcopal  port  and  dignity?  —  on  American  air 
only  ?  "  1 

Dr.  Mayhew  replied  to  the  Candid  Examination  and  the 
Ansiver  in  two  separate  pamphlets.  The  title  of  the  first  is  a 
bit  belligerent ;  2  but,  since  the  ground  gone  over  is  much  the 
same  as  that  in  his  earlier  argument,  the  details  need  not  be 
considered.  One  point,  however,  may  be  touched  upon  with  a 
word.  In  the  course  of  his  discussion,  Mayhew  takes  occasion 
to  answer  an  assertion  made  by  his  opponents,  to  the  effect 
that  the  Episcopalians  in  Massachusetts  are  unreasonably  taxed 
for  the  support  of  divine  worship  in  the  manner  established  by 
the  laws  of  the  province :  he  points  out  that,  by  a  perpetual 
law  passed  by  the  government  there,  they  are  exempted  from 
taxes  for  the  support  of  ministers  and  churches  not  of  their  own 
denomination.^  His  manner  of  stating  the  case  is  rather  strik- 
ing :  ""  I  have  been  informed,"  says  he,  "  whether  rightly  or  not, 
that  his  Excellency  then  in  the  chair,  when  the  aforesaid  act  of 
exemption  was  passed,  received  the  thanks  of  the  then  bishop 
of  London  for  his  service  therein ;  as  ha\ang  contributed  his 
endeavours  to  relieve  the  members  of  the  church  of  England 
from  an  inconvenience  or  hardship,  not  from  an  illegal  oppression, 
which  they  had  long  labor'd  under."*  The  act  referred  to, 
passed  in  1742,  did  not  emanate  from  the  spontaneous  will  of 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  but  owed  its  passage  to  the 
efforts  of  the  governor.  Since,  moreover,  its  provisions  seem  not 
to  have  been  strictly  enforced,  and  since  it  offered  only  a  partial 

^  Claims,  17. 

2  A  Defence  of  the  Observations  on  the  Charter  and  Conduct  of  the  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  against  an  Anonymous 
Pamphlet  falsly  intitled,  A  Cajidid  Examination  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observa- 
tions, dr'c.,  and  also  against  the  Letter  to  a  Friend  annexed  Thereto,  said  to 
Contain  a  Short  Vindication  of  said  Society,  by  one  of  its  Members  (Boston, 
1763). 

^  See  Massachusetts  Province  Laws  (1742,  ch.  8),  iii.  25. 

*  Defence,  50.     Cf.  Foote,  Annals  of  King'' s  Chapel,  ii.  265. 


154  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

amelioration  of  existing  conditions,  the  Episcopalians  still  la- 
bored under  a  substantial  grievance.^ 

In  Mayhew's  reply  to  Seeker's  Ajtswer,  according  to  the 
sub-title  of  the  London  edition,^  "  the  Scheme  of  sending 
Bishops  to  Afnerica  is  particularly  considered;  and  the  In- 
conveniences that  might  result  from  it  to  that  country,  if 
put  into  Execution,  both  in  civil  and  religions  Respects,  are 
represented."  It  is  significant  that  here  for  the  first  time, 
from  the  Independent  side  at  least,  the  question  of  establish- 
ing bishops  in  the  colonies  takes  its  place  as  the  main  topic  of 
the  controversy.  This  was  a  result  of  the  line  of  argument 
adopted  in  the  Answer.  Mayhew  begins  by  pointing  out  that 
Seeker's  statement  that  his  Observations  was  written  partly 
against  the  Church  of  England  in  general,  partly  against  the 
conduct  of  the  Society,  and  partly  against  the  project  of  appoint- 
ing colonial  bishops,  is  incorrect ;  for  what  Seeker  has  said 
about  bishops  is,  he  shows,  incidental  to  what  he  has  said  about 
the  Church  of  England.  With  regard  to  the  latter  subject  he 
says,  "  It  was  by  no  means  my  design  in  this  publication,  to  enter 
into  the  controversy  betwixt  the  church  of  England  and  us  ;  "  ^ 
but,  since  the  author  of  the  Answer  has  dragged  in  the  ques- 
tion of  the  episcopate,  he  professes  his  perfect  readiness  to 
discuss  it.^ 

He  understands  his  opponent's  reasons  for  advocating  an 
American  episcopate  to  be,  in  substance,  those  more  dis- 
tinctly enumerated  in  the  Abstract  of  the  Society  for  1715, 
namely  to  provide  the  proper  functionaries,  (i)"to  rnle  and 
govern  well  those  people  who  are  desirous  to  be  committed  to 
their  charge,"  (2)  "  to  defend  2ind  protect  both  the  clergy  and  the 

1  In  Foote's  Annals,  ii.  252,  occurs  this  statement:  "Their  [the  Independ- 
ents'] toleration  of  episcopacy,  under  the  new  political  conditions,  may  have 
been  compulsory,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  sincere,  so  long  as  it  was  not 
made  the  cover  of  unfriendly  interference."  The  evidence  which  we  have  on 
this  point  indicates  quite  the  contrary  view. 

^  Remarks  on  an  Anonytnoiis  Tract,  entitled,  An  Answer  to  Dr.  Mayhew's 
Observations  .  .  .  B  eing  a  Second  Defettce  of  the  Observations  (JBiO&ion,  ijS^; 
reprinted  London,  1765). 

^Remarks,  4-5.     Cf.  Observations,  151. 

*  Remarks,  56. 


MAVHEIV'S  ''SECOND  DEFEATCE:'  1 55 

laity,"  (3)  "  to  imite  the  clergy  themselves,  and  reduce  them  to 
order,''  and  (4)  "to  confirm  new  converts  from  schism  ...  in 
ordainittg  ministers  from  amongst  themselves ;  in  confirming 
weak  brethten,  and  blessing  all  manner  of  people  susceptible  of 
snch  holy  impressions,  as  are  made  by  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's 
hand's."  ^ 

Recurring  to  the  plan  as  sketched  by  the  author  of  the  Ansiver, 
he  admits  that  the  proposal  is  presented  from  "  a  more  plausible 
and  less  exceptionable  point  of  view  "  than  he  has  ever  seen  it 
presented  from  before,  for  the  reason  that  the  bishops  here  sug- 
gested are,  first,  not  to  meddle  with  those  not  churchmen ;  sec- 
ondly, not  to  have  any  power  in  matrimonial  or  testamentary 
cases,  or  to  infringe  on  the  functions  of  the  governors  and 
magistrates,  or  in  any  way  diminish  the  powers  of  the  laity,  and, 
lastly,  not  to  be  settled  in  any  but  Episcopal  colonies.^  While 
Mayhew  in  this  concession  tries  to  do  justice  at  least  to  the  more 
reasonable  demands  of  his  opponents,  he  displays  at  the  same 
time  a  rather  curious  ignorance  of  what  had  been  really  asked, 
for  some  time  past,  by  the  less  extreme  among  the  advocates  for 
an  American  episcopate.  The  plans  proposed  by  Sherlock  and 
Butler,^  for  example,  had  called  for  not  a  whit  more  than  that 
drawn  up  by  Seeker  in  the  Answer.  Sherlock's  plan,  designed 
only  for  the  eyes  of  the  king  and  the  chief  officers  of  state,  was 
of  course  inaccessible ;  but  that  of  Butler,  expressly  intended 
for  the  consideration  of  the  colonists,  had,  as  we  have  seen, 
actually  been  sent  to  New  England.*  In  view  of  this  fact,  May- 
hew's  statement  that  the  scheme  as  presented  in  the  Answer  is 
quite  different  from  the  one  which  he  and  others  of  his  persua- 
sion had  supposed  the  Episcopalians  to  have  in  mind,  and  his 
allusions  to  a  certain  "superb  house"  which  he  had  supposed  to 
be  the  designed  residence  for  a  New  England  bishop,^  carry 

'^Remarks,  56-57,  citing  the  Society's  Abstract,  1715,  pp.  53-54- 

"^Remarks,  57-58. 

^  See  above,  pp.  122-124,  3-nd  below,  Appendix  A,  No.  xii. 

■*  See  above,  p.  124,  note  i. 

^  Mayhevi'  refers  here  to  the  house  still  standing  in  Cambridge,  built  (prob- 
ably in  1761)  by  the  Reverend  East  Apthorp.  It  is  situated  between  Massa- 
chusetts Avenue  and  Mount  Auburn  Street,  directly  opposite  Gore  Hall,  the 
Harvard  University  Library,  and  is  popularly  known  as  the  "  Bishop's  Pal- 


156  THE  MAYHEIV  CONTROVERSY. 

hardly  the  weight  which  they  otherwise  might.  The  same 
criticism  applies  to  his  objection  that,  although  he  regards  the 
project  as  he  now  understands  it  to  be  very  reasonable,  he  can 
hardly  accept  it  as  authoritative,  since  it  comes  from  an  un- 
known source.^ 

Mayhew  believes,  however,  that,  even  though  bishops  should 
come  to  the  colonies  with  the  limited  powers  proposed,  it  is, 
from  the  nature  of  their  relations  with  their  English  brethren, 
extremely  unlikely  that  they  would  long  be  contented  to  main- 
tain a  position  inferior  to  theirs,  "  without  any  of  their  temporal 
power  and  grandieur  .  .  .  and  consequently  wanting  that  author- 
ity and  respect  which,  it  might  be  pleaded,  is  needful.  Ambi- 
tion and  avarice,"  he  continues  sententiously,  "  never  want 
plausible  pretexts,  to  accomplish  their  end."  ^  At  all  events, 
the  colonists,  he  thinks,  are  much  safer  without  bishops ;  for, 
if  they  were  once  settled,  pretexts  might  easily  be  found  for 
>  increasing  their  power.  For  example,  he  adds,  it  is  very  natu- 
ral to  fear  that  by  virtue  of  the  establishment  of  bishops  the 
number  of  Episcopalians  might  increase  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
attain  a  majority  in  the  legislatures,  and  thereby  secure,  per- 
haps, not  only  an  establishment  of  the  Church  of  England,  but 
also  taxes  for  the  support  of  bishops,  test  acts,  ecclesiastical 
courts,  and  what  not.^  These  matters  are  at  this  time,  he 
thinks,  all  the  more  worthy  of  consideration,  because  the  colo- 
nists have  already  got  wind  of  the  fact  that  "  high-church  tory- 

ace"   (cf.   S.   A.  Drake,  Historic  Fields  and  Mansions  of  Middlesex^  196- 

197)- 

1  Remarks,  59-60. 

2  Ibid.  60. 

8  Ibid.  62-64.  Id  justice  to  Mayhew,  it  must  be  admitted  that  one  of  the 
most  important  concessions  of  Butler,  Seeker,  and  Sherlock,  namely,  that 
bishops  should  not  be  sent  to  New  England,  was  not  agreed  to  by  the  lead- 
ing Episcopal  clergymen  of  that  province.  Compare  letters  from  Timothy 
Cutler  and  Henry  Caner  to  Bishop  Sherlock,  April  24,  1751,  and  May  6,  1751, 
respectively  {Fiilham  MSS.,  reprinted  below.  Appendix  A,  No.  x.).  These 
letters  were  privately  written  to  his  Lordship.  In  view  of  the  public  testi- 
mony made  by  these  gentlemen  on  the  28th  of  the  previous  November  (see 
above,  p.  124,  with  note),  there  seems  to  be  pretty  certain  evidence  of 
double-dealing  on  their  part.  Strangely  enough.  Perry  omitted  to  print  the 
letters  in  his  papers  relating  to  Massachusetts. 


MAYHEIV'S  FINAL  POSITION.  1 57 

principles  and  maxims  "  have,  under  the  new  king,  once  more 
found  favor  since  their  overthrow  in  171 5  and  1745.-^ 

It  was  here,  indeed,  that  the  strength  of  the  Independents' 
position  lay.  Even  admitting  the  single-mindedness  and  purity 
of  motive  of  the  pro-episcopal  party,  —  a  thing  which,  by  the 
way,  they  seldom  did,  —  they  might  still  very  correctly  main- 
tain that  no  one  could  answer  for  the  future.  Moreover,  just 
at  this  moment,  when  the  colonists  were  tending  more  and  more 
toward  a  separation  from  the  mother  country  as  a  result  of  their 
long  independent  growth,  when  their  newly-attained  freedom 
from  the  dangers  of  French  attack  made  such  a  divergence,  for 
the  first  time,  possible,  and  when  certain  specific  encroachments 
on  the  part  of  the  English  government  made  it  for  their  interest 
to  stand  on  their  own  bottom,^  they  were  hardly  in  a  position  to 
accept  any  innovation  which  would  offer  the  least  menace  to 
their  liberties.  Hence  the  efforts  of  the  Episcopalians  to  push 
their  plan  at  this  time  was  at  least  one  of  the  causes  tending  to 
accentuate  that  growing  alienation  between  Great  Britain  and 
her  colonial  subjects  beyond  the  seas  which  prepared  the  ground 
for  the  Revolution  soon  to  follow. 

Though  the  calmness  of  temper  which  Seeker  manifested  in 
his  Answer  had  a  soothing  effect  on  Mayhew,  causing  him,  in 
his  last  contribution  to  the  discussion,  to  moderate  his  tone  and 
modify  the  violence  of  his  expressions,  it  had  no  effect  whatever 
in  shaking  his  fundamental  convictions  on  the  point  at  issue. 
Such  concessions  as  he  seems  to  m.ake  are  merely  apparent 
yieldings.  When  he  says,  for  example,  "  I  think  it  but  justice 
to  him  [the  author  of  the  Answer]  to  acknowledge,  that  if  such 
a  scheme  as  he  has  proposed  were  to  be  put  in  execution,  and 
onljf  such  consequences  were  to  follow,  as  \iQ  professedly  has  in 
view,  as  the  ends  aimed  at,  I  could  not  object  against  it ;  except 
only  upon  the  same  principle,  that  I  object  against  the  church 
of  England  in  general,  and  should  be  sorry,  from  a  regard  to 
what  I  suppose  a  more  scriptural  way  of  worship,  to  see  that 
church  prevail  here ; "  and  when,  agreeing  with  his  opponent 

'^Remarks.,  63-67. 

^  For  the  last  two  points,  compare  Lecky,  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury, iii.  ch.  xii. 


158  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

'  that  every  man  has  a  right  to  enjoy  the  full  benefit  of  his  reli- 
gion so  long  as  the  machinery  he  requires  to  secure  it  does  not 
menace  the  interests  of  the  community,  he  assures  him  that  he 
would  not  prevent,  even  were  it  in  his  power,  what  would  be 
merely  religious  toleration,^  —  when  he  says  these  things,  he  is 
in  reality  yielding  nothing  whatever.  Since  his  qualifications 
rob  his  apparent  concession  of  all  practical  weight,  his  posi- 
tion is,  and  remains,  aside  from  a  certain  polite  recognition 
of  the  courtesy  of  his  opponent,  essentially  uncompromising. 
Of  this  attitude  his  closing  remarks  are  a  convincing  proof. 
While  acknowledging  the  author  of  the  Answer  to  be  a  man  of 
moderation  and  good  sense,  he  nevertheless  continues  to  think 
that  he  himself  has  not  been  wrong  on  any  material  point ;  and 
he  refuses,  in  case  anything  more  should  be  written,  to  reply 
simply  "  for  the  sake  of  having  the  last  word  "  on  the  subject.^ 

To  this  last  work  of  Mayhew's  the  Reverend  East  Apthorp 
replied  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  A  Review  of  Dr.  Mayhew's 
Remarks,  etc.  Since  the  Review  contains  little  that  is  new,  it 
may  be  passed  without  detailed  consideration.  The  author  takes 
Mayhew  to  task  for  his  statement  that  he  has  been  misinformed 
as  to  the  grounds  for  the  establishment  of  an  American  bishop, 
and  quotes  from  Butler's  plan  of  1750,  which  he  assumes  that 
Mayhew  must  have  seen.  The  burden  of  his  argument  is  to 
prove  that  there  is  no  basis  in  fact  for  the  apprehensions  which 
Mayhew  has  expressed.  As  to  the  question  of  maintenance, 
for  example,  —  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles  from  the  colonial 
point  of  view,  —  he  assures  his  readers  that  if  no  money  should 
be  found  for  the  support  of  bishops,  no  bishops  would  be  sent.^ 
Mayhew,  on  reading  Apthorp's  work,  said  that  he  should  not 
answer  it.     He  died  in  the  following  year.^ 

Although  Apthorp's  Review  was  the  last  contribution  made 
to  the  controversy  by  either  side,  the  matter  continued  to  be 
discussed  in  private  correspondence  for  at  least  a  year  longer, 
Thomas  Hollis,  writing  from  London  to  Mayhew  in  1765, 
expressed  the  wish  that  "  Mr.  Otis  could  be  induced,  in  his  bold 
and  able  manner,"  to  write  something  against  the  scheme  of 

'^ Refftarks,  77-78.  ^Review,  54-55,  6o-6r. 

2  Ibid.  85-86.  ■*  Porteus,  Life  of  Seeker,  60. 


RESULTS  OF  THE  DISCUSSION.  1 59 

episcopizing  the  colonies.  According  to  Hollis,  the  advocates 
for  bishops  were  more  active  and  sanguine  than  ever ;  and  he 
feared,  from  the  fact  that  they  had  won  over  some  of  the  Eng- 
lish statesmen  to  their  side,  that  their  cause  was  in  danger  of 
triumphing.^  But  Hollis's  wish  remained  unfulfilled,  and  the 
Mayhew  controversy,  as  such,  was  at  an  end. 

A  word  as  to  the  results  of  the  discussion  may  be  added. 
Naturally,  both  sides  claimed  a  victory.  Chandler  says  that  it 
was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Johnson  that  the  church  had  gained 
ground  in  the  controversy,  rather  than  lost  it ;  ^  but  his  state- 
ment has  no  basis  in  fact.  It  is  most  Hkely  that  the  agitation 
had  the  effect  of  uniting  the  forces  of  those  who  were  in  favor 
of  episcopacy,  and,  indeed,  of  inducing  many  who  had  hitherto 
been  lukewarm  to  take  a  decided  stand  beside  the  leaders  of 
their  cause.  On  the  other  hand,  it  had  precisely  the  same 
effect  on  the  members  of  the  opposing  party,  awakening  large 
numbers  for  the  first  time  to  the  realization  of  the  danger  which 
the  leading  Independents  had  for  some  time  apprehended.  /As 
to  the  influence  of  the  question  on  the  history  of  the  time,  we 
have  a  decided  opinion  from  an  authority  no  less  important 
than  John  Adams,  who,  writing  of  the  causes  of  the  Revolution, 
says  :  "  If  any  gentleman  supposes  this  controversy  to  be  noth- 
ing to  the  present  purpose,  he  is  grossly  mistaken.  It  [the 
plan  of  episcopizing  the  colonies,  especially  New  England] 
spread  an  universal  alarm  against  the  authority  of  Parliament. 
It  excited  a  general  and  just  apprehension,  that  bishops,  and 
dioceses,  and  churches,  and  priests,  and  tithes,  were  to  be  im- 
posed on  us  by  Parliament.  It  was  known  that  neither  king, 
nor  ministry,  nor  archbishops,  could  appoint  bishops  in  Amer- 
ica, without  an  act  of  Parliament  ;  and  if  Parhament  could 
tax  us,  they  could  establish  the  Church  of  England,  with  all 
its  creeds,  articles,  tests,  ceremonies,  and  tithes,  and  prohibit 
all  other  churches,  as  conventicles  and  schism  shops."  ^ 

^  Bradford.  Life  of  Mayhew,  375-376. 

'^ "  As  indeed  it  had  always  done  in  similar  cases,"  adds  Chandler  (^Life  of 
Johnsoji,  111-113). 

3  Letter  to  H.  Niles,  February  13,  1818,  in  John  Adams,  Works,  x.  288; 
also  cited  in  Foote,  Annals  0/  King's  Chapel,  ii.  267,  and  in  Bradford,  Life  of 


l6o  THE  MAYHEW  CONTROVERSY. 

Whether  one  agrees  with  this  statement  or  not,  is  of  no  con- 
sequence ;  its  significance  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  shows  how- 
much  importance  was  attached  to  the  episcopal  controversy  by 
a  great  political  leader  of  the  period,  a  leader  who  expressed  and 
influenced  the  people  of  his  day  and  generation.  At  least 
this  much  is  certain:  the  controversy  brought  to  a  head  appre- 
hensions which  were  at  once  a  sign  and  a  further  cause  of 
the  political  events  of  the  period ;  it  sharpened  the  point  at 
issue  between  the  two  great  church  parties,  caused  them  to 
organize  for  the  first  time  into  two  great  opposing  camps,  and 
left  them  in  this  situation  to  face  what  was  to  come.  / 

Mayheiv,  276.  Bradford  adds  :  "  How  then  can  it  ever  be  said,  the  writings 
of  Mayhew,  against  introducing  and  establishing  episcopacy,  were  not  impor- 
tant in  support  of  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  against  the 
claims  of  arbitrary  power  in  the  British  parliament  ?  " 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY,  1767-1771. 

»  This  disputation  originated  in  some  remarks  made  by  John 
Ewer,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  in  a  sermon  which  he  preached  before 
the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  at  its  annual  meeting  in 
February,  1767.  In  the  course  of  his  discourse,  he  animadverted 
upon  the  meagreness  of  the  provisions  for  religious  instruction 
in  the  colonies ;  and,  after  pointing  out  what  the  Society  had 
done  toward  supplying  that  need,  he  went  on  to  bewail  the  fact 
that  there  was  still  a  dearth  of  native  ministers  in  the  country, 
a  fact  which  he  attributed  to  the  absence  of  resident  bishops. 
He  waxed  especially  eloquent  in  detailing  the  hardships  to 
which  the  candidates  were  subjected  in  being  forced  to  come  to 
England  for  orders.  "What  encouragement,"  he  asked,  "have 
the  inhabitants  of  these  regions  to  qualify  themselves  for  holy 
orders,  while,  to  obtain  them,  they  lie  under  the  necessity  of 
crossing  an  immense  Ocean,  with  much  inconvenience,  danger 
and  expence ;  which  those  who  come  hither  on  that  errand  can 
but  ill  bear.  And  if  they  have  the  fortune  to  arrive  safe,  being 
here  without  friends,  and  without  acquaintances,  they  have  the 
sad  business  to  undergo,  of  presenting  themselves  unknown  to 
persons  unknown,  without  any  recommendation  or  introduction, 
except  certain  papers  in  their  pocket.  Are  there  not  circum- 
stances in  this  case,  sufficient  to  deter  every  ordinary  courage, 
and  to  dampt  the  most  adventurous  spirit."  ^     Such  is  the  burden 

'  of  Ewer's  claim.  Dr.  Charles  Chauncy,  a  well-known  Boston 
clergyman,  in  an  open  letter  "  to  a  friend,"  ^  undertook  to  answer 
Ewer's  assertions.  He  quotes  the  statements  noticed  above, 
and  declares  that  they  are  very  much  exaggerated  as  to  both 
fact  and  implication.     He  says  that  the  candidates  do  not  go 

^  Chauncy,  Letter  to  a  Friend,  43,  citing  the  Society's   Abstract,  1 767, 
p.  21.     Cf.  also  Letter,  ifZ,,  cx'ixn^  Abstract,  ii. 

^  Dated  December  10,  1767,  and  published  at  Boston. 

II 


l62  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

at  their  own  expense  and  unknown,  or  if  they  do  happen 
to  be  unknown  they  are  always  in  a  position  to  make  them- 
selves easily  acquainted,^  The  want  of  ministers  he  attrib- 
utes to  quite  other  causes  than  that  assigned  by  the  Bishop  of 
Llandaff ,  —  namely,  to  lack  of  sufficient  opportunity  for  exercis- 
ing their  functions,  and  to  inadequate  provision  for  their  support. 
The  real  point  aimed  at  in  the  introduction  of  bishops  is,  he 
asserts,  not  so  much  to  increase  the  missionary  force  for  spread- 
ing the  Gospel  among  the  heathen  as  to  make  the  colonists  turn 
Episcopalians,  in  order  that  the  Church  of  England  may  obtain 
a  majority  over  the  other  denominations,  an  exigency  which, 
however,  is  not  to  be  so  much  feared  as  the  possibility  that 
the  bishops,  once  settled,  would  "  make  use  of  their  superiority  " 
to  force  the  establishment  willy-nilly  on  the  inhabitants.^  He 
goes  on  to  say  that  in  all  the  colonies  only  eight  or  nine  Episco- 
pal churches  are  self-supporting,  the  rest  (some  sixty)  being  to 
a  considerable  extent  dependent  on  the  Society.  In  view  of 
this  fact,  the  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that  any  further  exten- 
sion of  the  Episcopal  system  would  incur  a  grave  expense,  a 
consideration  in  which,  he  thinks,  Kes  the  chief  objection  to  the 
plan.^ 

Passing  on  to  Ewer's  assertion  that  if  the  settlement  of  bish- 
ops be  once  secured,  "the  American  Church  will  soon  go  out 
of  its  infant  state ;  be  able  to  stand  upon  its  own  legs ;  and 
without   foreign    help   support   and    spread    itself.     Then  the 

BUSINESS    OF    THIS    SOCIETY    WILL    HAVE    BEEN    BROUGHT    TO    THE 

HAPPY  ISSUE  INTENDED."  Chauncy  concludes  triumphantly : 
"  The  conduct  of  the  Society  has,  for  many  years,  given  us 
reason  to  suspect  their  main  view  was  to  episcopize  the  colo- 
nies ;  but  we  were  never  before,  that  I  know  of,  told  so  in 
direct  terms."*  This  conclusion  was  hardly  the  one  to  be 
drawn  from  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff' s  statement,  for  it  might  very 
well  have  been  the  purpose  of  the  Society  to  build  up  its  church 
and  make  it  self-supporting  in  order  that  its  sphere  of  useful- 
ness might  be  as  broad  as  possible.  The  results  apprehended 
by  Chauncy  might,  of  course,  have  followed ;  but  he  certainly 

^  Letter  to  a  Friend,  43-44.  ^  Ibid.  48  fF. 

2  Ibid.  46-47.  ■■  Letter  to  a  Friend,  51 . 


iNGL/s's  '' vindication:'  163 

finds  no  warrant  for  them  in  any  statements  which  he  quotes 
from  the  sermon  of  his  opponent. 

Chauncy's  letter  was  supplemented  by  A  Letter  to  the  Bishop 
of  Llandaff  from  William  Livingston,  who  was  induced  to  take 
part  in  the  discussion  after  a  perusal  of  Chauncy's  pamphlet,  to 
which  his  attention  had  been  drawn  by  seeing  a  long  quotation 
from  it  in  Chandler's  Appeal  to  the  Public.  Livingston's  argu- 
ment contains  little  that  is  new,  and  in  arrangement  and  phras- 
ing is  so  similar  to  that  of  Chauncy  that  hostile  critics  have 
denounced  it  as  a  plagiarism.  This  charge,  however,  is  rather 
too  severe.  Original  the  work  certainly  is  not ;  but  the  author 
is  perfectly  honest,  for  he  not  only  at  the  outset  refers  to  Dr. 
Chauncy  as  one  to  whom  he  has  been  indebted  for  several  facts 
and  observations,  but  frequently  in  the  course  of  his  work  gives 
his  predecessor  in  the  field  credit  for  many  of  the  remarks 
which  he  quotes  in  regard  to  certain  passages  in  the  Bishop  of 
Llandaff's  sermon. 

The  last  word  on  the  subject  was  said  by  Charles  Inglis,^  in 
A  vindication  of  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff ' s  Sermon  from  the 
Gross  Misrepresentations,  and  Abusive  Reflections,  contained  in 
Mr.  Wm.  Livingston  s  Letter  to  his  Lordship  with  some  addi- 
tional Observations  oti  certain  Passages  in  Dr.  Chauncy  s  Remarks, 
&c.  This  pamphlet,  which  appeared  anonymously,  was  signed 
by  "  A  Lover  of  Truth  and  Decency."  After  devoting  some 
sixty-two  of  his  eighty-two  pages  to  justifying  the  Bishop  of 
Llandaff's  assertions  concerning  the  lack  of  sufficient  missionary 
provision  for  America,  he  comes  to  closer  quarters  with  his 
opponent.  To  Livingston's  assertion  that  the  "  grand  burden  " 
of  Ewer's  sermon  appeared  to  be  an  attempt  to  persuade  the 
English  people  of  the  necessity  of  an  American  episcopate,  he 
retorts  that  "the  grand  burden  of  Livingston's  paper  is  to  preju- 
dice the  public  against  the  plan,  and  thus  to  deprive  colonial 
EpiscopaHans  of  the  common  rights  and  privileges  of  all  Chris- 
tians."^ It  is  in  his  postscript  that  the  charge  of  plagiarism 
against  Livingston  first   occurs.^    Whether   Inglis's   argument 

^  At  that  time  an  Episcopal  clergyman  in  New  York. 
^  Inglis,  Vindication,  64.  Cf.  Livingston,  Letter,  21. 
2  Vindication,  70-82. 


l64  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

silenced  his  opposers,  whether  they  thought  it  not  worth  while 
to  answer,  or  whether,  as  is  most  likely,  interest  in  the  dis- 
cussion was  lost  in  a  far  more  important  and  significant  contro- 
versy which  had  already  opened,  may  be  left  to  the  reader  to 
answer  for  himself.  We  now  pass  on  to  consider  the  origin, 
progress,  and  result  of  that  stirring  pamphlet  war  between 
Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler  ^  and  Charles  Chauncy  which  agi- 
tated the  colonies  during  the  years  1767-1771.^ 

Chandler,  in  his  biography  of  Dr.  Johnson,^  tells  us  how  his 
Appeal  to  the  Public,  which  opened  the  controversy,  came  to  be 

•  written.  Johnson,  it  seems,  thought  that  Seeker's  Answer  and 
Apthorp's  Remarks,  which  explained  the  sort  of  episcopate 
desired,  had  not  been  sufficiently  circulated,  and  that  the  disaf- 
fection of  opponents  was  due  chiefly  to  their  ignorance  of  the 
true  nature  of  the  scheme.  For  this  reason  he  desired  to  have 
further  explained  or  reiterated  the  fact  that  no  encroachment  on 
the  civil  or  religious  liberties  of  any  denomination  was  intended. 

'  Since,  owing  to  a  paralysis  of  the  hand,  he  could  not  write  him- 
self, he  chose  Chandler  as  a  person  suitable  to  undertake  the 
task.  Johnson's  plan  and  selection  were  confirmed  by  a  con- 
vention of  the  clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  which  met 
in  1767.*  This  was  an  organization  of  comparatively  recent 
origin,  the  first  meeting  having  been  held  May  21,  1766,  at  the 
house  of  the  Reverend  Dr.  Auchmuty,  rector  of  Trinity  Church, 
New  York.  The  purpose  of  the  association  is  best  explained  in 
the  words  of  the  following  resolution  then  adopted  :  "  The  Clergy 
of  the  Province  of  New  York  taking  into  their  serious  considera- 
tion the  present  state  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  Colonies, 

^  Chandler  was  rector  of  St.  John's  Church,  Elizabethtown,  New  Jersey, 
from  1751-1790  (cf.  title-page  of  A.  H.  Hoyt's  Life  of  Chandler^. 

2  Good  accounts  of  the  external  history  of  the  controversy  may  be  found  in 
Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  1 51-153;  and  Perry, 
American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  416-418. 

3  Pages  1 14-1 16.     See  also  his  advertisement  to  the  Appeal,  ix-xi. 

*  It  resolved  "  that  fairly  to  explain  the  plan  on  which  American  bishops 
had  been  requested,  to  lay  before  the  public  the  reasons  of  this  request,  to  an- 
swer the  objections  that  had  been  made,  and  to  obviate  those  that  might  be 
otherwise  conceived  against  it,  was  not  only  proper  and  expedient,  but  a  mat- 
ter of  necessity  and  duty."  (Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  415,  from 
the  original  manuscript  of  the  convention.) 


CHANDLER'S  LETTER   TO   TERRICK.  1 65 

where  it  is  obliged  to  struggle  against  the  opposition  of  sectaries 
of  various  denominations,  and  labours  under  the  want  of  the 
Episcopal  Order,  and  all  the  advantages  and  blessings  resulting 
therefrom ;  agreed  upon  holding  voluntary  conventions,  at  least 
once  in  the  year  and  oftener  if  necessity  required,  as  the  most 
likely  means  to  serve  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  England  ; 
as  they  could  then  not  only  confer  together  upon  the  most  Hkely 
methods,  but  use  their  joint  influence  and  endeavours  to  obtain 
the  happiness  of  Bishops,  to  support  the  Church  against  the 
unreasonable  opposition  given  to  it  in  the  Colonies,  and  to  culti- 
vate and  improve  a  good  understanding  and  union  with  each 
other."  1  On  the  22d  they  sent  a  letter  to  the  Society  stating 
what  they  had  done  and  outlining  the  purpose  of  their  action.^ 
They  continued  their  meetings  from  year  to  year  until  the  eve 
of  the  Revolution.^ 

(  In  the  course  of  the  year  1767,  Chandler  finished  his  Appeal 
to  the  Public  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America^ 
There  is,  among  the  manuscripts  at  Fulham,  a  letter  which  he 
sent  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  with  a  copy  of  his  book.  Per- 
haps an  examination  of  this  letter  will  serve  to  give  an  idea  of 
the  opinion  which  he  held  of  his  own  work.  What  he  has 
written,  he  informs  his  diocesan,  expresses  the  opinions  of  the 
clergy  in  most  of  the  colonies,  and  names  some  of  the  facts  and 
reasons  upon  which  these  opinions  are  based.  But,  and  this 
is  markworthy,  only  some  of  these  reasons  are  considered ;  the 
rest  are  kept  in  the  background,  for,  says  Chandler,  "  There 
are  some  Facts  and  Reasons,  which  could  not  be  prudently 
mentioned  in  a  Work  of  this  Nature,  as  the  least  Intimation  of 
them  would  be  of  ill  Consequence  in  this  irritable  Age  and 
Country :  but  were  they  known,  they  would  have  a  far  greater 
Tendency  to  engage  such  of  our  Superiors,  if  there  be  any  such 
as  are  governed  by  Political  motives,  to  espouse  the  Cause  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  America,  than  any  contained  in  the 

1  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  415,  from  the  original  manuscripts 
of  the  convention. 

2  Ibid.  416. 

^The  work  of  this  convention  will  be  considered  in  more  detail  in  a  later 
chapter. 

*  It  was  sent  to  the  press  on  the  24th  of  June. 


1 66  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

Pamphlet.  But  I  must  content  myself  with  having  proposed 
those  only  which  could  be  mentioned  safely,  and  leave  the 
event  to  Divine  Providence."  ^ 

This  confession  is  of  the  utmost  significance  in  forming  an 
ultimate  judgment  of  the  ensuing  controversy,  for  it  shows  that 
Chandler  could  hardly  have  been  perfectly  open  and  straight- 
forward in  his  advocacy  of  the  cause  of  an  American  episco- 
pate.^ Moreover,  various  indications  —  as,  for  example,  some 
expressions  used  by  Johnson  in  his  correspondence  with  the 
leading  ecclesiastics  in  England,"^  and  the  conflicting  assertions 
of  Cutler  and  Caner  already  noted*  —  go  to  show  that  Chandler 
was  not  the  only  one  involved.  The  fact  that  these  leaders  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  America  thought  and  acted  in  con- 
cert, and,  furthermore,  that  many  of  them  held  well-known 
loyalist  sympathies,  makes  the  supposition  possible  that  they 
had  some  ulterior  motives  in  the  introduction  of  bishops,  which 
boded  no  good  to  the  religious  liberties  of  their  fellow-colonists. 
Accordingly,  while  one  must  appreciate  the  deplorable  position 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  America,  and  acknowledge  the 
justice  of  the  attempts  of  its  members  to  free  themselves  from 
the  hard  conditions  restricting  them  in  the  maintenance  and 
propagation  of  their  form  of  worship,  one  is  forced  to  admit 
that  the  suspicions  of  their  opponents  had  some  foundation. 

To  be  sure,  the  condition  of  things  following  the  passage 
and  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  made  it  most  unlikely  that 
the  English  government  would  lend  its  aid  to  the  machinations 
of   the  extremists  among  the  pro-episcopal  party ;  ^  but,  even 

^  Chandler  to  Bishop  Terrick,  October  21,  1767,  Fitlham  MSS.  The  whole 
letter  is  printed  below  in  Appendix  A,  No.  xiii. 

2  Chandler  was  an  ardent  loyalist,  and  either  at  this  time  or  subsequently 
entered  into  a  compact  with  Samuel  Seabury  and  Charles  Inglis  "  to  watch 
and  confute  all  publications  in  pamphlets  or  newspapers  that  threatened  mis- 
chief to  the  Church  of  England  and  the  British  Government  in  America" 
(Beardsley,  Life  of  Seabury,  30). 

^Cf.  above,  pp.  106-110,  passi?/!,  and  below,  ch.  id.  passim. 

^  See  above,  p.  156,  note  3. 

^Chauncy,  in  his  Appeal  Answered,  no,  points  out  that  the  time  for 
bringing  up  the  matter  was  not  favorable,  since  harmony  had  not  been  restored, 
as  Chandler  had  assumed  that  it  was. 


CHANDLER'S  ''APPEAL   TO   THE  PUBLIC:'  167 

if  it  had  before  that  time  had  any  such  intention,  the  determined 
attitude  of  the  Independents  had  had  the  effect  of  checking,  in 
its  very  conception,  a  plan  Hkely  to  have  been  very  dangerous 
in  its  ulterior  consequences. ^  No  one  reaHzed  the  situation  in 
England  better  than  Chandler ;  hence,  the  wish  with  which  he 
concludes  his  letter,  that  some  one  there  would  take  up  the 
cause  and  push  it  energetically,  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  "  set  it 
forth  to  advantage."  With  his  letter  and  these  preliminary 
considerations  in  mind,  we  may  now  proceed  to  consider 
Chandler's  first  contribution. 

He  prefaces  his  work  with  the  words  of  Justin  Martyr :  "  We 
desire  a  fair  Trial  —  if  we  are  guilty,  punish  us ;  if  we  are  inno- 
cent, protect  us."  Then  follows  an  advertisement  to  the  reader, 
in  which  he  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land is  the  only  religious  body  in  America  not  fully  tolerated ; 
that,  while  even  the  Romish  church  is  allowed  bishops,  the 
Anglican  church  is  "  left  in  a  maimed  state,  lopt  of  Episcopacy, 
.  .  .  And  whence  this  disgraceful  distinction .'' "  he  asks, 
"  whence  this  mark  of  distrust .''  what  is  the  fear .-'  what 
the  danger .''  A  few  persons  vested  with  authority  to  ordain 
ministers,  to  confirm  youth,  and  to  visit  their  own  clergy.  Can 
two  or  three  persons,  restrained  to  these  spiritual  functions,  be 
dangerous  to  any  in  any  matter  .''  in  what .''  or  to  whom  .■'  Can 
they  possibly,  so  limited,  on  any  pretence  whatever,  attempt  to 
molest  any  in  their  religious  concerns .''  Can  they  invade  the 
rights  and  jurisdiction  of  magistrates }  Can  they  infringe  the 
liberties  of  the  people  .-*  Can  they  weaken,  or  be  thought  dis- 
posed to  weaken,  the  fidelity  of  the  colonies  to  his  Majesty, 
or  their  dependence  on  this  country  .-'"^  Certainly,  from  a  re- 
ligious point  of  view,  it  was  unjust  to  deprive  the  members  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  America  of  so  necessary  a  part  of 

^  If  the  advocates  of  an  American  episcopate  had  ever  had  any  chance  of 
prevailing  with  the  home  government,  it  was  in  the  interval  between  the  close 
of  the  Seven  Years'  War  and  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act ;  hence,  if  there 
was  need  of  the  stand  so  firmly  taken  by  Mayhew,  the  time  which  he  chose 
was  most  opportune.  The  attitude  of  the  English  officers  of  state  toward  the 
question  after  1750  will  be  considered  in  a  later  chapter. 

-Appeal  to  the  Public^  xi.,  quoting  from  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff's  Sermon^ 
22-24. 


1 68  THE   CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

their  system  as  bishops.  Yet,  if  the  case  was  so  simple,  and 
the  intention  so  innocent,  as  Chandler  here  professes,  why  did 
he  consider  certain  arguments  in  favor  of  the  plan  as  unsafe  to 
be  put  before  the  public,  when  avowedly  his  only  motive  in 
writing  his  book  was  to  show  the  people  in  the  colonies  that  the 
suspicions  which  impelled  them  to  oppose  the  plan  were  un- 
founded and  unjust  ? 

His  argument  is  arranged  under  four  heads:  (i)  the  origin 
and  nature  of  the  episcopal  office ;  (2)  reasons  for  sending  bish- 
ops to  America;  (3)  a  plan  by  which  they  are  to  be  sent;  (4)  a 
refutation  of  objections  against  the  plan.  Since  the  first  point 
(which  he  considers  in  the  first  two  of  the  eleven  sections  into 
which  his  work  is  divided)  has  no  connection  with  the  subject 
in  hand,  we  may  pass  at  once  to  sections  iii.-vii.  inclusive,  in 
which  he  takes  up  his  second  point,  namely,  the  need  of  an 
American  episcopate.  The  functions  of  the  desired  bishops,  he 
says,  would  be  governing,  confirming,  and  ordaining  ministers. 
For  the  first  of  these  offices  there  is  a  crying  need,  since  the 
Church  of  England  is  practically  without  any  form  of  govern- 
ment ;  for,  though  the  Bishop  of  London  has  taken  some  cog- 
nizance of  those  under  his  charge,  he  has  been  able  to  effect 
little,  living,  as  he  does,  at  a  distance  of  three  thousand  miles.^ 
The  offices  of  a  bishop,  he  continues,  are  needed  by  two  sorts 
of  clergy,  the  good,  who  need  his  advice  and  encouragement, 
the  bad,  who  need  his  coercive  hand ;  ^  moreover,  the  laws 
and  canons  enjoin  a  strict  episcopal  discipline  and  over- 
sight of  the  clergy,^  which  in  the  present  state  of  things  is 
impossible. 

With  regard  to  ordination.  Chandler  thinks  that  under  the 
existing  conditions  the  difficulties  are  almost  insurmountable, 
owing  to  the  expense  and  hardship  involved  in  crossing  the 
Atlantic.  The  trip,  he  says,  can  hardly  be  made  for  less  than 
;!^ioo;  and,  further  than  that,  out  of  fifty-two  candidates  who 
have  gone  to  England  for  orders  only  forty-two  have  returned 
in  safety.  This  state  of  affairs  is,  he  thinks,  responsible  for  an 
appalling  lack  of  clergy,  and  can  be  remedied  only  by  settling 

1  Appeal  to  the  Public,  28-29.  2  7^^-^.  33. 

^  Ibid.  31. 


CHANDLER'S  ^'APPEAL   TO   THE  PUBLIC:'  169 

bishops  in  the  colonies.^  Still  another  evil  lies  in  the  fact  that, 
since  the  candidates  are  often  unknown  to  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don, unworthy  men  often  obtain  ordination  from  him.^ 

He  gives  three  main  reasons  why  bishops  have  not  hitherto 
been  sent :  first,  because,  since  the  country  was  originally  set- 
tled by  private  adventurers  chiefly  of  a  dissenting  faith,  bishops 
of  the  Church  of  England  have  been  little  needed ;  secondly, 
because,  though  they  have  since  come  to  be  necessary,  the 
troublous  times  abroad  have  kept  the  home  government  too 
much  occupied  to  attend  to  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  clergy ; 
finally,  because,  though  the  officers  of  state  have  now  time  to 
consider  the  question,  they  will  of  their  own  accord  take  no 
steps  for  fear  of  infringing  on  the  religious  liberties  of  the  dis- 
senters.^ He  thinks  the  present  juncture  favorable  for  the 
advancement  of  the  plan,  because  Great  Britain  is  at  peace  and 
the  government  has  no  other  distracting  occupation,  and  also 
because,  from  the  recent  large  acquisition  of  Episcopalians, 
the  need  is  more  urgent  than  ever.*  Hence,  since  the  first  two 
conditions  which  have  operated  against  the  realization  of  the 
project  exist  no  longer,  it  is  time  to  do  away  with  the  remaining 
one,  and  thereby  bring  the  plan  to  fruition.  This  is  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Appeal  to  the  Public. 

His  next  step  is  to  define  the  plan  upon  which  bishops  are  to 
be  sent,  for  the  enlightenment  of  such  as  oppose  the  project. 
These  opposers  he  divides  into  three  classes:  (i)  the  enemies 

^  We  have  already  met  this  argument  in  the  consideration  of  the  Bishop  of 
Llandaff's  sermon.  Chandler  gives  some  statistics  for  February,  1767:  in 
New  Jersey  there  were  twenty-one  parishes,  of  which  eleven  were  without 
clergymen  ;  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  three  lower  counties  outside  of  Philadel- 
phia, twenty-six  churches  and  only  seven  clergymen ;  in  North  Carolina 
(according  to  a  letter  from  Governor  Dobbs  to  the  Society,  March  29,  1764), 
twenty-nine  parishes,  i.e.  one  for  each  county,  and  only  six  ministers.  See 
Appeal  to  the  Public,  34-35- 

2  Ibid.  36. 

8  Ibid.  47-48. 

*  He  estimates  that  at  this  time  there  were  3,000,000  British  subjects  in 
America,  of  whom  1,000,000  were  Episcopalians  {Ibid.  54-55)-  These  figures 
are  disputed :  Chauncy,  for  example,  says  that  there  were  only  26,000  Episco- 
palians north  of  Maryland,  and  only  upward  of  300,000  in  the  whole  country 
{Appeal  Answered,  114,  133-134)- 


I/O  THE  CHAJVDLER-CHAUIVCV  CONTROVERSY. 

of  all  religions;  (2)  the  enemies,  secret  or  open,  to  the  Protes- 
tant religion  in  particular ;  (3)  those  who,  while  friendly  to  reli- 
gion in  general,  fear  that  the  extension  of  episcopacy  may  be 
prejudicial  to  the  integrity  of  their  property  or  religious  liberty.^ 
It  is  mainly  for  the  third  class  that  the  Appeal  is  intended ;  for 
their  benefit,  therefore,  are  enumerated  —  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  explanation  has  been  so  often  made  before  —  the  pro- 
posed functions  of  an  American  episcopate,  namely,  "  That  the 
Bishops  to  be  sent  to  America,  shall  have  no  Authority,  but 
purely  of  a  Spiritual  and  Ecclesiastical  Nature,  such  as  is 
derived  altogether  from  the  Church  and  not  from  the  State  — 
That  this  Authority  shall  operate  only  upon  the  Clergy  of  the 
Church,  and  not  upon  the  Laiety  nor  Dissenters  of  any  Denomi- 
nation —  That  the  Bishops  shall  not  interfere  with  the  Property 
or  Privileges,  whether  civil  or  religious,  of  Churchmen  or  Dis- 
senters—  That  in  particular,  they  shall  have  no  Concern  with 
the  Probate  of  Wills,  Letters  of  Guardianship,  and  Administra- 
tion, or  Marriage-Licences,  nor  be  Judges  of  any  Cases  relating 
thereto  —  But,  that  they  shall  only  exercise  the  original  Powers 
of  their  Office  as  before  stated,  i.e.,  ordain  and  govern  the  Clergy, 
and  administer  Confirmation  to  those  who  shall  desire  it."^ 

Having  outlined  the  functions  and  hmitations  of  the  proposed 
episcopate.  Chandler  next  proceeds  to  answer  such  objections 
as  have  been  or  may  be  urged  against  it.^  He  counts  among 
the  most  serious  of  these  one  which  was  brought  up  by  some  of 
the  London  papers  at  the  time  of  the  Stamp  Act  agitation,  to  the 
effect  that  the  discontent  and  uneasiness  manifested  by  the 
colonists  on  that  occasion  were  due  in  a  great  measure  to 
the  fear  that  bishops  would  be  settled  among  them.  This 
notion  Chandler  strenuously  repudiates,  challenging  any  one  to 
find  a  trace  of  such  an  idea  in  any  of  the  remonstrances  of 
the  time,  and  asserting  most  emphatically  that  the  discontent 
then  manifested  was  wholly  due  to  what  the  colonists  regarded 
as   'an  imcoiistitutional  oppressive  Act.''  * 

After  considering  and  replying  to  the  more  general  objections,^ 
he  proceeds  to  a  refutation  of  those  of  a  more  special  nature. 

1  Appeal  to  the  Public,  §  viii.  -  Ibid.  79.  ^  Ibid.  §§  ix.-xi. 

^  Ibid.  89.  ^  They  have  been  considered  in  chapter  vi.  above. 


ESTIMATES    OF    CHANDLER'S    ''APPEAL:'  171 

*  For  example,  he  assures  his  readers  that  there  is  no  design  of 
establishing  ecclesiastical  courts  in  America ;  ^  that  any  appre- 
hension concerning  tithes  is  wholly  ungrounded  ;  that  the  colo- 
nists will  not  be  taxed  for  the  support  of  bishops,  and,  even 

'  if  they  should  be,  the  amount  would  be  very  small,  for  there 
already  existed  in  the  hands  of  the  Society  a  fund  for  the  main- 
tenance of  bishops,  and  if  it  should  prove  insufficient  for  the 
purpose,  more  could  easily  be  raised.^  Assurances  as  these 
were  too  vague  to  satisfy  the  class  of  opponents  with  whom 
Chandler  had  to  deal.  He  utterly  failed  to  answer  satisfac- 
torily the  question  of  the  likelihood  of  a  possible  augmentation 
of  the  powers  of  bishops  if  once  settled,  and  he  even  expressed 
opinions  which,  to  say  the  least,  would  hardly  tend  to  allay  the 
suspicions  which  were  growing  stronger  every  day  in  the  minds 
of  the  colonists.^ 

In  general  it  may  be  said  of  Chandler's  book  that,  from  a 
religious  point  of  view,  it  presented  the  case  of  the  Episcopa- 
lians in  a  most  convincing  light.  For  a  complete  enjoyment  of 
their  form  of  worship,  bishops  were  absolutely  necessary  both  to 
maintain  the  system  where  it  already  existed  and  to  propagate 
it  where  it  did  not  exist.  This  fact  was  already  admitted  by  the 
more  reasonable  among  the  anti-episcopal  party ;  but,  unfortu- 
nately, the  granting  of  the  request  for  bishops  was  bound  up 
with  certain  political  consequences  which  an  eminently  practical 
people  must  perforce  take  cognizance  of.  The  attempt  to  cope 
with  this  difficulty  led  Chandler  to  ground  upon  which  he  was 
not  so  sure-footed  as  in  other  parts   of   his  Appeal.      To  be 

^  Appeal  to  the  Public,  96. 

'^Ibid.  107-108. 

3  For  example,  a  writer  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  May  28,  1768,  says:  "The 
Appeal  to  the  Public  in  favor  of  an  American  Episcopate  is  so  flagrant  an 
attempt  to  introduce  the  Canon  Law,  or  at  least  some  of  the  worst  fruits  of  it, 
into  the  Colonies,  hitherto  unstained  with  such  pollution,  uninfected  with  such 
poison,  that  every  friend  of  America  ought  to  take  the  Alarm — Power,  in  any 
forms,  and  under  any  limitations,  when  directed  only  by  human  wisdom  and 
benevolence,  is  dangerous  ;  the  most  terrible  of  all  power  that  can  be  en- 
trusted to  man  is  the  Spiritual."  This  paragraph  was  quoted  by  the  Londoti 
Chronicle,  July  ig,  1768.  Chandler's  admission  concerning  taxing  was  at  once 
made  capital  of :  see,  for  example,  two  articles  by  ''  Atlanticus,"  in  the  London 
Chronicle,  June  27  and  July  26,  1768. 


1/2  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

sure,  he  satisfied  himself  by  reiterating  the  very  plausible  and 
innocent-appearing  plan  which  had  often  been  sketched  by  his 
predecessors ;  but  such  reasoning  satisfied  his  opponents  not  a 
whit.  Indeed,  in  view  of  what  he  wrote  in  his  letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  London,  it  is  hard  to  be  sure  that  he  himself  was 
wholly  sincere  in  the  plan  he  here  set  forth.  As  a  result,  his 
book,  instead  of  smothering  the  agitation,  stirred  it  up  to  even 
greater  heat.  Proof  of  this  fact  is  to  be  found  both  in  particular 
pamphlets  written  in  reply  to  his,  and  in  the  violent  newspaper 
controversy  which  his  book  called  forth.^ 

The  Appeal  was  answered  in  the  following  year  by  Charles 
Chauncy,  who,  considering  the  four  points  of  Chandler's  argu- 
ment one  after  another,  sought  to  show  that  the  reasons  alleged 
for  an  American  episcopate  were  insufficient  to  justify  its  estab- 
lishment, and  that,  notwithstanding  the  recent  apologetic,  the 
objections  against  it  remained  in  full  force.  His  reasons  for 
writing  the  Appeal  Answered  he  declares  in  the  advertisement 
to  be,  first,  the  solicitations  of  "  private  friends,"  ^  and  secondly, 
Chandler's  statement  that,  if  no  further  objections  were  offered 
against  an  American  episcopate,  it  would  be  taken  for  granted 
that  all  parties  were  satisfied  with  the  plan  as  set  forth  by  him.^ 

Taking  up  first  ^  the  question  of  the  necessity  of  bishops  for 
purposes  of  discipline,^  Chauncy  points  out  that  the  Anghcan 
bishops  are  not  the  real  governors  of  the  church,  but  are  mere 
creatures  of  the  state  ;  and  that  the  Church  of  England,  at  least 
so  far  as  its  government  is  concerned,  is  a  parhamentary  church. 

1  Two  newspaper  writers  at  once  took  sides  against  the  Appeal,  the  "  Amer- 
ican Whig"  and  the  "Centinel."  This  controversy  in  its  many  ramifications 
will  be  made  the  subject  of  a  later  chapter,  in  which  numerous  other  contrib- 
utors will  be  mentioned  and  their  main  arguments  considered. 

2  This  is  a  sarcasm  on  Chandler,  who  said  in  his  advertisement  that  he  had 
been  commissioned  by  the  convention  to  write  his  Appeal. 

^  Chauncy's  accusation,  that  the  Episcopalians  had  kept  secret  their  argu- 
ments for  bishops  until  they  were  on  the  eve  of  accomplishing  their  purpose 
(^Introduction  to  the  Appeal  Answered,  5-6),  is  manifestly  contrary  to  fact. 

^  That  is,  first  in  respect  to  what  concerns  the  present  study.  Chauncy''s 
preliminary  discussion  is  theological. 

^  In  the  course  of  his  argument,  he  incidentally  takes  Chandler  to  task  for 
advocating  discipline  for  the  clergy  and  not  for  the  laity,  a  position  which  he 
considers  to  be  illogical.     See  Appeal  Answered,  69-70. 


CHAUNCY'S   ANSWER    TO    THE    ''APPEALS  173 

Such  being  the  case,  his  conclusion  is  that  a  bishop  of  the  pro- 
posed sort  could  do  nothing  in  the  way  of  enforcing  discipline 
which  a  commissary  might  not  equally  well  do,  that  is,  un- 
less he  employed  the  accessories  in  use  in  England,  such  as 
spiritual  courts,  institutions  which,  as  the  Appeal  emphatically 
assures  the  public,  it  is  not  proposed  to  introduce  into  the 
colonies. 

Passing  from  the  subject  of  discipline  to  that  of  ordination,  the 
Answer  devotes  some  pages  to  showing  that  Chandler's  picture 
of  the  'danger  and  hardship  involved  in  the  necessity  of  going 
to  England  for  orders  is  very  much  overdrawn.^  He  also 
points  out,  what  seems  very  true,  that  a  commissary's  testi- 
monial to  a  candidate  would  be  as  good  a  safeguard  against 
unworthy  ministers  as  a  bishop's  immediate  oversight.^  An- 
other point  which,  he  says,  seems  to  have  been  generally  over- 
looked in  the  contemporaneous  discussion,  is  that  a  large 
number  of  the  unworthy  clergymen  consecrated  for  America 
are  not  those  who  go  from  the  colonies  to  England  for  orders, 
but  those  sent  from  there ;  for,  since  as  a  rule  the  most  talented 
and  capable  clergymen  prefer  to  remain  in  England,  the  colonies 
usually  get  only  those  who,  from  unfitness,  either  moral  or  intel- 
lectual, are  unable  to  maintain  their  positions  at  home. 

In  answer  to  an  assertion  often  made,  among  others,  by 
Chandler,  that  the  proposed  bishops  would  not  be  settled  in 
the  dissenting  colonies,  he  answers  that  they  would,  neverthe- 
less, have  power  there,  and  would,  moreover,  be  settled  there  as 
opportunity  should  arise.^ 

Another  objection  to  the  scheme  for  American  bishops 
Chauncy  finds  in  the  fact  that  the  question  has  been  agitated 
almost  wholly  by  the  clergy,  and  by  the  laity  scarcely  at  all. 
"  It  is  to  me,"  he  says,  "  as  well  as  to  many  I  have  conversed 
with  upon  this  head.  Episcopalians  among  others,  very  ques- 

^  In  this  respect  Chauncy  shows  himself  erroneous,  unjust,  and  uncharitable. 

2  Appeal  Answered,  87. 

^ /bid.  101-102.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  many  of  the  prominent 
Episcopalian  clergymen  in  New  England,  notably  Timothy  Cutler,  rector  of 
Christ  Church,  and  Henry  Caner  of  King's  Chapel,  were  not  in  favor  of  ex- 
cluding the  proposed  bishops  from  New  England  (see  above,  p.  156,  note  3). 


174  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

tionable,  whether,  if  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  in 
these  northern  Colonies,  were  to  give  in  their  votes,  and  to  do 
it  without  previous  Clerical  influence,  they  would  be  found  to 
be  on  the  side  of  an  American  Episcopate."  ^ 

In  spite  of  Chandler's  assurance  to  the  contrary,^  Chauncy 
expresses  the  fear  that  tithes  might  come  with  the  bishops, 
and,  in  this  connection,  pounces  on  Chandler's  incautious  ad- 
mission that,  if  taxes  should  be  laid  on  the  colonists,  the  amount 
would  be  very  small,  perhaps  f  ourpence  on  one  hundred  pounds, 
or  about  one  six-thousandth  of  a  man's  income,  a  refusal  to  pay 
which  would  show  that  one  was  neither  a  "good  subject"  nor  a 
good  "  member  of  society."  Upon  this  Chauncy  remarks,  and 
with  justice,  although  his  language  is  a  little  extravagant,  that 
he  and  those  of  his  persuasion  ought  not  to  pay  for  that  which 
their  ancestors  left  England  to  escape  —  "  the  Episcopal  yoke 
of  bondage."  ^  Nor  does  he  allow  to  pass  unnoticed  another 
incautious  admission  of  Chandler :  that,  "  Should  the  govern- 
ment see  fit  hereafter  to  invest  them  (the  proposed  bishops) 
with  some  degree  of  civil  power,  worthy  of  their  acceptance, 
which  it  is  impossible  to  say  they  will  not,  yet  it  is  inconceiv- 
able that  any  would  thereby  be  injured."  * 

After  seeking  to  meet  Chandler's  arguments  point  by  point, 
Chauncy  proceeds  to  treat  of  his  main  objections  under  five 
heads,  as  follows:  (i)  The  government  and  discipline  of  the 
Church  of  England,  under  the  proposed  American  episcopate, 
would  not  conduce  to  the  best  interests  of  the  church  itself, 
since  the  bishops  would  not  have  any  power  over  the  laity ;  or 
to  the  interests  of  the  bishops  who  should  be  sent,  since  their 
authority  in  a  matter  most  essential  would  be  thus  restricted. 
(2)  It  would  be  inconsistent  to  have  colonial  bishops  without 
ecclesiastical  courts,  if  these  institutions  were  to  be  continued 

'^  Appeal  Answered.,  135-136. 

2  He  is  continually,  either  explicitly  or  implicitly,  questioning  Chandler's 
good  faith.  For  example,  he  says  that  the  plan  of  an  episcopate  as  proposed 
by  him,  being  without  royal  consent,  can  have  no  validity  {^Ibid.  137-140). 

^  Ibid.  192-194. 

"^  Ibid.  195-196.  What  Chandler  says  on  this  head,  together  with 
Chauncy's  answer,  is  quoted  by  Foote,  Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  ii.  276- 
777. 


SUMMARY   OF    CHAUNCY'S    OBJECTIONS.  175 

in  the  mother  church.  (3)  The  project  is  on  its  face  doomed 
to  failure,  for  there  are  no  such  bishops  known  to  the  Church 
of  England  as  Chandler  describes ;  his  proposed  bishop  is  to 
have  no  authority  at  all  as  an  officer  of  state,  whereas  a  Church 
of  England  bishop  could  not  exist  divorced  from  the  state ;  ^ 
hence  any  such  plan  could  not  but  be  rejected  by  the  king  and 
Parliament.  (4)  The  plan  would  meet  with  no  support  from 
the  Independents,  who,  since  they  seek  no  establishment  for 
themselves,  would  not  feel  justified  in  seeking  it  for  others. 
(5)  Since,  according  to  his  reasoning,  the  proposed  episcopate 
would  be  of  no  practical  value,  even  to  the  Church  of  England 
itself,  the  money  required  for  the  support  of  bishops  might 
better  be  applied  to  missionary  work.^  How  far  these  argu- 
ments are  cogent  must  be  left  to  each  reader  to  determine  for 
himself. 

The  rest  of  Chauncy's  objections  are  professedly  a  reaffirma- 
tion and  confirmation  of  those  of  Mayhew.^  Summed  up  in  a 
single  phrase,  they  are  what  had  been,  was,  and  ever  would  be, 
the  kernel  of  the  whole  opposing  argument,  namely,  that 
bishops  once  settled  would  be  apt  to  extend  their  powers. 
Chauncy,  however,  goes  a  bit  farther  than  his  predecessor  in 
accusing  the  advocates  for  bishops  of  a  wilful  suppression  of 
facts.  His  opinion  is  that  "they  have  much  more  in  design 
than  they  have  been  pleased  to  openly  declare.  .  .  .  We  are  as 
fully  persuaded,"  he  adds,  "  as  if  they  had  openly  said  it,  that 
they  have  in  view  nothing  short  of  a  complete  Church  Hie- 
rarchy, after  the  pattern  of  that  at  home,  with  like  officers,  in 
all  their  various  degrees  of  dignity,  with  a  like  large  revenue 
for  their  grand  support,  and  with  the  allowance  of  no  other 
privilege  to  dissenters  but  that  of  a  bare  toleration."  *  It  has 
been  shown  that  the  first  part  of  his  statement  had  some  basis 

^  *•'  Did  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,"  he  says,  "  no  more  depend  on 
the  State,  and  no  more  derive  their  authority  from  it,  than  our  ministers  do, 
the  Episcopal  Churches  here  might  as  well  be  supplied  with  Bishops  as  our's 
are  with  Pastors"  (^Appeal  Answered,  151). 

-Ibid.  141-157. 

^  After  citing  Mayhew  at  length,  he  states  that  he  regards  the  objections 
advanced  by  him  as  reasonable  {Ibid.  178). 

'^  Ibid.  201-202. 


1/6  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

in  fact.  The  second  part,  although  possibly  an  exaggeration, 
is  interesting  as  a  fairly  typical  expression  of  the  fear  prevailing 
not  only  in  New  England,  but  elsewhere,^  and  as  an  illustration 
of  the  guiding  principle  in  the  action  of  a  large  number  of 
earnest  and  serious-thinking  men. 

Chandler's  defence  was  published  in  the  following  year.^ 
On  the  title-page  he  prints  the  following  quotation  from  A 
Letter  to  the  Author  of  the  Confessional :^  "There  are  some 
spirits  in  the  world  who,  unless  they  are  in  actual  Possession 
of  Despotism  themselves,  are  daily  haunted  with  the  Appre- 
hension of  being  subject  to  it  in  others,  and  who  seem  to  speak 
and  act  under  the  strange  Persuasion  that  every  Thing  short 
of  Persecution  against  what  they  dislike  must  terminate  in  the 
Persecution  of  themselves."  These  words  sum  up  the  concep- 
tion which  Chandler  and  those  of  his  party  had  of  the  attitude 
of  the  Independent  bodies  toward  forms  of  religion  other  than 
their  own.  Although,  like  all  generalities,  it  is  subject  to  some 
qualification,  it  is  a  fairly  accurate,  though  somewhat  harsh, 
representation  of  the  actual  state  of  things;  for  even  yet  the 
idea  of  toleration  as  such  was  only  slowly  beginning  to  make 
itself  felt  in  the  colonies  and  in  Christendom. 

While  lamenting  the  virulent  and  unfair  way  in  which  his 
proposition  has  been  received,  and  his  arguments — which  he 
intended  to  be  serious  —  have  been  ridiculed  in  the  public 
prints  of  Boston,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia,  Chandler  is 
still  full  of  a  naive  optimism,  for,  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
which  his  publication  has  called  forth,  he  sees  no  evidence  of 
any  objection  to  the  settlement  of  bishops,  provided  they  be 
not  invested  with  temporal  powers,  or,  as  Chauncy  chose  to 
put  it,  "under  a  state  establishment."* 

Among  his  numerous  opponents  he  singles  out  Chauncy  for 
his  chief  attention,  and  passes  over  as  unworthy  an  answer  two 

^  See,  for  example,  a  favorable  review  of  the  Appeal  Answered,  by  "  A 
Quaker,"  in  the  London  Chronicle,  June  14,  1768. 

^  The  Appeal  Defended :  or,  The  Proposed  American  Episcopate  Vindicated^ 
etc.  (New  York,  1769). 

3  By  Dr.  Ridley  and  Thomas  Seeker,  published  at  London  in  1768. 

*  Appeal  Defended,  Introduction,  4,  9. 


CHANDLER'S   ''APPEAL    DEFENDED:'  1 77 

pamphlets  written  by  "  An  Antiepiscopalian"  and  by  "  A 
Presbyter  in  Old  England."  ^ 

In  replying  to  Chauncy,  he  goes  over  the  ground  already 
covered  in  the  Appeal.  His  opponents,  he  says,  have  more  than 
once  asserted  that  the  taxation  of  the  colonies  and  the  proposal 
to  send  bishops  to  America  are  parts  of  one  general  scheme, 
the  former  menacing  the  political,  the  latter  the  religious  liber- 
ties of  the  country  ;  but  he  denies  that  there  is  any  ground  for 
this  supposition.  So  far  as  the  definite  purpose  of  the  English 
government  came  into  the  question,  he  was  perfectly  right,  for 
there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  two  things  were  con- 
nected in  its  thought'  and  he  was  equally  successful  in  showing 
that  his  opponents  were  both  uncharitable  and  unconvincing  in 
their  attempts  to  make  light  of  the  disadvantages  under  which 
the  Episcopalians  suffered  in  being  forced  to  get  on  without 
bishops.  Where  he  failed  was  in  his  efforts  to  show  that 
the  settlement  desired  would  be,  in  its  logical  consequences, 
no  menace  to  the  religious  and  political  independence  of  the 
country. 

So  much  for  the  general  trend  of  Chandler's  argument ;  now 
let  us  consider  a  few  of  the  specific  questions  which  he  handles. 
In  answer  to  Chauncy's  suggestion,  that  commissaries  might  be 
sufficient  for  purposes  of  church  government,  he  points  out  that 
"Reason  and  Experience  teach  the  contrary."^     In  seeking  to 

^  Of  these,  the  latter  is  the  more  important.  The  title  is,  A  Sjippletnent 
to  a  Letter  to  a  Frieiid,  containing  an  Answer  to  the  Plea  of  T.  B.  Chandler 
for  American  Bishops,  wherein  his  Reasonings  are  shown  to  be  Fallacious 
and  his  Claims  Indefetisible.  The  argument  of  the  "  Presbyter "  contains 
little  more  than  a  restatement  of  the  opinions  to  be  found  in  any  of  the 
better-known  publications.  The  points  on  which  he  lays  most  stress  are 
the  following :  that,  if  bishops  are  to  exercise  discipline  over  none  but  the 
laity,  the  need  of  them  is  very  much  diminished  (p.  63)  ;  that  the  time 
for  introducing  them  is  inopportune  ;  that,  since  the  amount  of  money  already 
in  the  hands  of  the  Society  for  their  settlement  and  maintenance  (some 
;^470o)  is  obviously  inadequate,  the  burden  of  the  expense  would  probably 
fall  upon  the  colonists ;  that  the  bishops  once  in  position  would  gradually 
usurp  power.  He  sees  a  particularly  dangerous  tendency  in  Chandler's  state- 
ment that  "  Episcopacy  can  never  thrive  in  a  Republican  government,  nor 
Republican  principles  in  an  Episcopal  Church  "  (p.  78). 

'  Apfeal  Defetided,  117. 


178  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

show  that  bishops  would  be  able  to  do  what  the  commissaries 
had  proved  themselves  unequal  to  do,  he  is  forced  to  admit 
that  there  might  be  need  of  spiritual  courts  for  the  trial  of  the 
Episcopal  clergy  only.^  But  these  courts  had  already  existed 
under  the  commissarial  regime,  and  "reason  and  experience" 
had  shown  that  they  too  were  not  practicable  without  some 
coercive  power  to  back  their  decrees.  However,  if  that  power 
had  been  added,  even  for  necessity's  sake,  the  episcopal  form 
of  government  thus  created  would  hardly  have  been  that  pro- 
fessedly advocated  by  Chandler. 

Chandler  next  proceeds  to  consider  the  five  objections  urged 
by  Chauncy  ;  ^  and,  considering  the  fact  that  the  burden  of 
proof  lies  with  him,  he  holds  his  own  in  this  part  of  the  argu- 
ment very  well.^  The  rest  of  his  refutation  is  rather  weak,  or 
at  least  unsatisfactory.  He  endeavors  to  meet  his  opponent's 
objections  to  what  he  had  said  about  the  possibility  of  taxation, 
and  a  future  augmentation  of  episcopal  powers,  with  the  lame 
plea  that  he  had  considered  these  questions  only  as  possible 
extreme  suppositions  for  the  sake  of  illustration.*  Nevertheless, 
they  were,  after  all  has  been  said,  extremely  unfortunate  admis- 
sions ;  and  it  would  be  hardly  too  much  to  assume  that  they  had 
the  effect  of  counteracting  whatever  favorable  effect  his  book 
might  otherwise  have  had  on  the  hostile  or  the  indifferent.  His 
challenge  to  his  opponents  to  produce  evidence  that  the  motives 
of  the  advocates  for  bishops  are  not  what  they  appear-  on  the 
surface,^  has  a  touch  of  insincerity,  after  what  he  has  been 
shown  to  have  said  on  this  matter  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  Terrick. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  his  assumption  that  the  scheme  would 
obtain  the  assistance  of  the  government  if  desired  ;  for  he  must 
have  known  that  certain  scruples  —  the  dissenting  interest,  com- 
bined with  several  other  considerations  —  had  always  been  strong 
enough  to  defeat  any  support  from  that  quarter. 

His  conclusion  may  be  summed  up  somewhat  as  follows : 
Since  an  American  episcopate  is  greatly  desired,  the  objections 
to  it  have  been  foreseen  and  regarded  in  drawing  up  the  plan 
on  which  it  is  to  be  settled.     In  accordance  with  this  plan,  the 

^  Appeal  Defended,  ii8.  -  See  above,  p.  174. 

^  Appeal  Defended,  206-207.  "^  Ibid.  248-253.  ^  Ibid.  258-260. 


CHAUNCY'S  ''REPLY''  TO  THE  ''APPEAL  DEFENDED:'      179 

proposed  bishops  are  to  be  supported  only  by  private  dona- 
tions, and  to  have  no  jurisdiction  over  any  but  their  own  clergy. 
To  save  themselves  from  being  outflanked  by  these  conces- 
sions, the  irreconcilable  opponents  to  the  plan  have  been 
forced  to  bring  up  new  objections,  which  may  be  classed  under 
two  heads:  first,  that  the  episcopate  in  the  modified  form 
advocated  would  not  be  desired  by  the  Episcopalians  them- 
selves;  and  secondly,  that  such  a  system,  harmless  in  the 
beginning,  would  tend  to  grow  oppressive.  In  regard  to  the 
first  point,  he  asserts  that  the  publications  of  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  the  vouchers  of  its  leading 
members,  prove  just  the  contrary.  As  to  the  second  point,  he 
maintains  that  there  is  not  only  no  intention,  but  also  no  proba- 
bility, of  such  an  exigency.  As  no  valid  objection  stands  in  the 
way,  the  Church  of  England  demands  the  settlement  of  bishops 
in  the  colonies  as  an  indisputable  right,  grounded  both  on  the 
sacred  claims  of  toleration  and  on  the  freedom  due  under  the 
English  constitution.^ 

How  much  effect  these  arguments  of  Chandler  had  on  his 
opponents  is  shown  by  the  wording  of  the  title  of  Chauncy's 
answer  (1770),  which  announced  itself  to  be  A  Reply  to  Dr. 
Chandler's  ^^  Appeal  Def ended''  :  wherein  his  Mistakes  are  recti- 
fied, his  false  Arguing-  refuted,  and  the  Objections  against  the 
planned  American  Episcopate  shozvn  to  remain  in  fill  Force  not- 
ivithstanding  all  he  has  offered  to  render  them  invalid?  Over  a 
third  of  the  pamphlet  is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  origin 
and  nature  of  the  episcopal  office.     Since  that  matter  does  not 

1  Appeal  Defended,  264-268. 

2  The  quotation  from  Baxter's  Treatise  of  Episcopacy,  which  he  takes  as 
a  motto  for  his  title-page,  is  very  amusing :  "  When  such  as  our  Diocesans 
sprang  up,  the  Church  was  presently  broke  into  pieces,  and  by  odious  Conten- 
tions and  Divisions  became  a  Scandal  and  Scorn  to  Unbelievers.  To  read 
but  the  Acts  of  Councils,  and  the  History  of  the  Church,  and  there  find  the 
horrid  Contentions  of  Prelates  against  each  other ;  the  Parties  which  they 
made,  their  running  up  and  down  the  World  to  Princes,  and  Rulers,  and 
Synods,  to  bear  down  one  another;  it  will  do  as  much  to  grieve  and  amaze 
the  Soul  of  a  sober  Christian,  as  almost  any  History  in  the  world  he  can 
peruse."  It  should  be  remarked  that,  on  the  score  of  courtesy,  Chandler  was 
throughout  the  controversy  a  shining  contrast  to  his  opponents. 


l8o  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

concern  us  here,  we  may  proceed  at  once  to  examine  what  the 
author  has  to  say  in  particular  on  the  subject  of  the  introduction 
of  bishops  into  America. 

As  in  his  previous  pubHcation,  he  takes  up  the  question  of 
ordination,  and  remarks  that  this  purely  spiritual  ofifice  can  be 
satisfactorily  performed  by  the  two  bishops  already  in  America, 
the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  in  the  North  and  the  Moravian 
bishop  in  the  South. ^  Like  all  his  predecessors  and  associates, 
Chauncy  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  fair  claims  of  his  opponents 
in  matters  of  purely  spiritual  concern :  all  that  he  says  on  this 
head  is  either  trivial  or  unsatisfactory. 

To  proceed  to  another  step  in  his  argument ;  he  says  that  the 
plans  hitherto  proposed  for  an  American  episcopate  have  been 
formulated  by  the  clergy  with  no  authority  from  their  laity  and 
no  official  sanction  from  the  king  of  England ;  ^  hence  any  plan 
established  by  the  "  proper  authority "  would  very  probably 
-differ  from  those  of  Seeker,  Butler,  and  others,  whatever  the 
pro-episcopal  agitators  may  "  intend  or  pretend."  Moreover, 
the  fact  that,  when  Dr.  Stiles  made  a  formal  application  to  the 
clerk  of  the  New  York  convention  for  copies  of  its  petitions, 
especially  of  those  to  the  king,  his  request  was  denied,  furnishes 
good  ground  for  supposing  that  the  arguments  put  forth  in  the 
public  prints  were  not  the  same  as  those  used  in  the  petitions. 
Another  indication  of  the  dubiousness  of  the  motives  of  those 
advocating  the  settlement  of  bishops  he  finds  in  the  fact  that  the 
applications  have  come  from  the  colonies  in  which  the  Church  of 
England  is  weakest,  namely,  the  seven  colonies  north  of  Virginia 
and  Maryland.  This  shows  that  the  main  point  aimed  at  is  to 
episcopize  the  colonies.^ 

In  a  recapitulation  of  the  arguments  contained  in  his  five 
specific  points  against  the  introduction  of  bishops,  he  says  little 
that  is  new.*  He  does,  however,  succeed  in  presenting  in 
clearer  form  the  inconsistency  of  settling  bishops  on  the  plan 
advocated  by  Chandler,  contending  that  such  bishops  as  the 
latter  proposes  could  not  be  sent  consistently  with  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church  of  England.     This  consideration  he  regards 

^  Reply  to  "  Appeal  Defended^''  91-93. 

'^  Ibid.  110-116.  ^Ibid.  152-153.  ^  Ibid.  121-153. 


THE  CASE   OF  THE  NEW   YORK  SYNOD.  i8l 

as  the  chief  obstacle  to  their  introduction  ;  for,  were  it  not  for 
the  fact  that  they  are  by  the  nature  of  their  office  inextricably 
bound  up  with  the  state  and  its  functions,  they  could  without 
more  ado  be  settled  in  American  dioceses  as  simply  as  the 
independent  pastors  are  settled  over  the  parishes. 

Chauncy  devotes  the  remainder  of  his  argument  to  showing, 
mainly  from  antecedent  probability,  the  dangers  inevitably  con- 
sequent upon  an  Episcopal  establishment.  In  support  of  his 
case,  he  cites  the  well-known  example  of  the  New  York  synod. 
The  Presbyterians  of  New  York  had  made  several  attempts  to 
obtain  a  charter  of  incorporation  for  their  body,  and  to  that  end 
had  applied  successively  to  Colonel  Schuyler  in  1 721,  to  Gov- 
ernor Burnet  in  1734,  and  to  Lieutenant  Governor  Delancey  in 
1759;  but,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  on  August  20,  1724,  Coun- 
sellor West  had  given  it  as  his  opinion  that  such  a  request  could 
be  legally  granted,  the  cause  had  made  no  progress.  In  March, 
1767,  a  fourth  petition  was  hazarded,  this  time  to  the  king. 
After  being  considered  in  the  Privy  Council,  it  was  referred  to 
the  Board  of  Trade,  before  which  the  Bishop  of  London 
appeared  twice  and  spoke  against  it.  Owing  probably  to  his 
efforts,  the  report  made  to  the  council  was  unfavorable,  and  in 
consequence  the  king  rejected  the  petition.^  From  the  evidence 
that  we  have  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  the  bishop's  action  was 
based  on  the  legal  ground  alleged,  namely,  that  it  would  have 
been  a  breach  of  the  Coronation  Oath  for  the  king  to  grant  the 
petition,  or  whether  he  proceeded  on  the  principle  that,  as 
diocesan  of  the  colonies  and  as  a  leading  prelate  of  the  Church 
of  England,  he  must  perforce  oppose  anything  that  would  tend 
to  advance  the  interests  of  any  other  form  of  worship  than  that 
which  he  represented.  Whatever  the  truth  of  the  matter  may 
have  been,  Chauncy  draws  the  inference  that  Bishop  Terrick's 
action  was  dictated  by  his  own  intolerance  and  the  pressure 
of  the  New  York  Episcopalians.^  He  argues  that  this  instance 
goes  to  show  what  may  be  expected  from  bishops,  if  once  they 
are  settled  in  the  colonies. 

He  adduces  as  collateral  evidence  the  connection  between  the 
episcopal  question  and  the  recent  course  of  political  events,  a 
1  Reply  to  "  Appeal  Defended^''  Appendix,  i.-vi.  2  /^/^_  j^. 


1 82  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

point  already  touched  upon  in  his  previous  pamphlet.  "  If 
Bishops,"  he  quotes  approvingly  from  Mayhew,  "were  speedily 
to  be  sent  to  America,  it  seems  not  wholly  improbable  from 
what  we  hear  of  the  unusual  tenor  of  some  late  parliamentary 
acts  and  bills,  for  raising  money  on  the  poor  colonies  without 
their  consent,  that  provision  might  be  made  for  the  support  of 
these  Bishops,  if  not  of  all  the  church  clergy  also,  in  the 
same  way."  ^  This  idea,  like  all  the  other  attempts  of  Chauncy 
to  join  the  two  issues,  was  strenuously  resisted  by  Chandler. 
Whether  it  was  a  shrewd  device  of  the  leaders  among  the 
Independent  clergy  to  frustrate  the  plan  by  coupling  it  with 
one  which  the  colonists  would  fight  to  the  last  ditch,  or  whether 
they  sincerely  believed  the  two  matters  to  be  really  connected, 
is  a  question  difficult  to  decide.  It  will  be  unnecessary  to 
follow  the  argument  of  the  Reply  to  the  ^^  Appeal  Defended'' 
any  farther,  for  its  central  position  is  sufficiently  clear,  that 
there  could  be  no  colonial  episcopate  except  upon  the  basis  of 
a  state  establishment,  and  this  would  involve  tendencies  and 
consequences  dangerous  to  the  integrity  of  the  civil  and  rehgious 
institutions  of  the  colonists. 

Chandler,  in  his  Appeal  Farther  Defended,  which  appeared  in 
answer  to  the  Reply  in  1771,  probes  the  heart  of  the  question 
at  issue  and  seeks  to  grapple  with  this  main  point.  Chauncy 
has  conceded  that  those  of  his  party  do  not  wish  to  oppose  the 
Episcopalians  in  the  exercise  of  their  religion,  even  under  bish- 
ops, provided  the  latter  be  purely  spiritual  shepherds.^  By  this 
concession.  Chandler  maintains,  his  opponents  have  given  up 
the  point  in  dispute.  On  closer  examination,  however,  a  non- 
partisan eye  would  discover  that  this  concession  was  fully  as 
hollow  as  that  made  by  Mayhew  at  a  previous  stage  of  the  con- 
troversy. Chandler's  assumption  cheerfully  presupposes  that 
he  and  his  colleagues  have  explained  away  all  that  would  tend 

1  Reply  to  "  Appeal  Defended.;'  1 66. 

-Chandler  {Appeal  Farther  Defended,  10)  quotes  the  passage  in  which 
Chauncy  has  best  summed  up  this  matter :  "  It  is  not  simply  the  exercise  of 
any  of  their  religious  prinqiples  that  would  give  the  least  uneasiness,  nor  yet 
the  exercise  of  them  under  as  many  purely  spiritual  Bishops  as  they  could 
wish  to  have;  but  their  having  Bishops  under  a  State-establishment" 
(Chauncy,  Appeal  Answered,  189). 


CHANDLER'S  ''APPEAL   FARTHER   DEFENDED:'         183 

to  indicate  that  the  form  of  episcopate  introduced  would  neither 
be  under  the  Church  of  England  establishment  nor  bring  in  its 
train  the  apprehended  political  effects.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  neither  he  nor  any  of  his  party  had  ever  succeeded  in 
proving  the  harmlessness  of  the  design  to  the  satisfaction  of  its 
critics ;  hence  his  victory  was  not  so  assured  as  he  would  have 
led  his  readers  to  think. 

As  in  the  Appeal  and  the  Appeal  Defejtded,  he  is,  to  be  sure, 
full  of  assurances :  the  proposed  bishops  are  to  have  " '  no 
Authority,  but  such  as  is  derived  altogether  from  the  Church.' 
.  .  .  The  Government  is  not  expected  or  desired  to  give  them 
any  Support  or  peculiar  Protection ;  and  consequently  they  are 
not  to  be  on  the  Footing  of  a  State  Establishment."  ^  But 
these  were  merely  assurances,  which  the  colonists,  considering 
the  dangerous  times  in  which  they  were  living,  neither  could  nor 
would  accept  without  some  further  guarantee.  On  one  point 
in  this  connection,  however.  Chandler  succeeded  in  confuting 
Chauncy,  and  in  a  negative  way,  at  least,  added  strength  to 
his  own  assurances :  he  printed  in  his  book  the  petitions  for 
American  bishops  sent,  October  2,  1765,  by  the  convention  held 
at  Perth  Amboy,  New  Jersey,  to  the  king  and  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  and  they  proved  to  contain  nothing  new  or 
secret.^ 

He  devotes  some  space  to  a  consideration  and  refutation  of 
the  suggestion  that  the  candidates  for  orders  in  the  Church  of 
England  can  very  well  be  consecrated  by  the  bishops  already 
in  America.  To  this  plan  he  enumerates  five  main  objections : 
that  the  Episcopalians  are  neither  Moravians  nor  Papists,  and 
therefore  would  not  like  to  have  their  spiritual  offices  performed 
by  members  of  those  bodies  ;  that  such  a  procedure  would  offend 
the  temporal  and  spiritual  authorities  of  the  Church  of  England  ; 
that  it  would  be  schismatical  according  to  the  canons  of  the 
church  ;  ^  that  there  are  only  two  bishops  in  the  colonies,  whereas 

"^  Appeal  Farther  Defended,  12. 

"^ Ibid.  2\-i'j. 

^  "We  look  upon  Schism  in  the  Church,'"  says  Chandler,  "to  have  much  of 
the  same  Nature  with  Rebellion  in  the  State ;  and  the  Guilt  of  both  is  so  fla- 
grant in  our  Opinion,  that  we  constantly  pray  in  our  Litany  to  be  preserved 


1 84  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

the  Episcopalians  prefer  to  follow  the  canonical  custom  of  hav- 
ing three  bishops  for  the  imposition  of  hands ;  ^  that  since  the 
home  government  would  undoubtedly  be  unwilling  to  lend  its 
consent  to  the  plan,  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  Canada  and 
the  Moravian  bishop  of  Pennsylvania  would  very  probably 
refuse  to  do  anything  in  the  matter  for  fear  of  offending  the 
authority  which  tolerated  them.  In  this  line  of  reasoning  we 
see  Chandler  at  his  best :  his  tone  is  moderate,  and  his  argu- 
ments logical  and  convincing.  Surely,  from  the  spiritual  point 
of  view,  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America 
had  the  strongest  of  cases ;  and,  had  no  other  considerations 
entered  into  the  question,  nothing  but  the  most  narrow  bigotry 
and  the  most  unjustifiable  intolerance  could  have  induced  any 
one  to  resist  their  entreaties. 

Chandler,  however,  overlooked  these  "other  considerations." 
In  the  teeth  of  the  most  contrary  evidence  he  seeks  to  show 
that  the  tendency  toward  a  favorable  consideration  of  the  plan 
is  much  more  marked  than  formerly.  "  There  were  many 
Members  of  the  Church,"  he  says,  "that  were,  upon  the 
whole,  averse  to  an  Episcopate  in  this  country,  imagining  it 
would  either  expose  them  to  considerable  Expence  for  its 
Support,   or  put    them   to   some   other    Inconveniences.^     But 

from  it  — '  from  all  false  Doctrine,  Heresy,  and  Schism^  as  well  as  '  from  ail 
Sedition,  privy  Conspiracy,  and  Rebellion.''  Were  the  British  Colonies  inde- 
pendent of  their  Parent-Kingdom,"  the  Episcopalians  in  this  Country  would  be 
a  Society  independent  of  the  national  Church ;  and  in  that  Case  they  might 
seek  for  an  Episcopate  from  any  Part  of  the  Globe,  from  which  they  could 
expect  most  easily  to  obtain  it.  But  such  an  Independency  they  do  not  affect 
—  they  wish  not  to  see;  they  desire  no  more  than  the  common  Rights  of 
British  Subjects,  and  the  common  Privileges  of  their  Fellow-Christians  ;  or,  in 
other  Words,  such  a  Toleration  as  the  Government  allows  to  the  Dissenters 
from  its  own  religious  Establishment"  (^Appeal Farther  Defended,  113-114). 
Although  this  passage  plainly  betrays  the  author's  loyalist  sympathies,  it  con- 
tains nothing  open  to  disparaging  criticism. 

^  This  of  course  applies  to  consecration  of  bishops.  According  to  the 
canon  law  only  one  bishop  was  needed  to  confer  ordination. 

'^  He  says  in  another  place  that  before  the  publication  of  the  Appeal  men 
had  had  two  objections  to  a  native  episcopate,  namely,  the  payment  of  tithes 
and  the  power  of  spiritual  courts  (^Appeal  Farther  Defended,  235).  It  has  been 
shown  that  certain  assertions  in  Chandler's  publication  had  tended  rather  to 
confirm  than  to  remove  these  apprehensions. 


CHANDLER'S  ''APPEAL  FARTHER  DEFENDED:'         185 

when  they  came  to  see  that  every  Thing  of  this  Kind  had 
been  carefully  guarded  against,  and  that  from  its  Design 
and  Tendency  it  would  be  mild  and  beneficial  in  its  Opera- 
tion, which  appeared  as  soon  as  it  was  explained  to  them, 
their  Aversion  immediately  ceased,  and  from  that  Time  they 
have  generally  viewed  it  in  the  same  Light  with  that  wherein 
it  is  seen  by  the  Clergy."  ^  This  statement,  even  as  regarded 
the  members  of  his  own  communion,  was  hardly  in  accordance 
with  the  facts  of  the  case ;  for,  as  later  events  showed,  a  con- 
siderable body  of  Episcopalians  in  Virginia  came  out  squarely 
against  the  scheme  of  superseding  the  authority  of  the  Bishop 
of  London  by  that  of  native  bishops,  and  in  some  of  the  other 
colonies  they  showed  hardly  any  enthusiasm,  to  say  the  least.^ 
In  this  connection  Chandler  points  out  a  consideration  or  two 
of  considerable  interest;  namely,  that  the  Quakers  of  Penn- 
sylvania and  New  Jersey  show  no  aversion  to  the  proposed 
American  episcopate,^  and  furthermore  that  the  Baptists  stand 
on  the  side  of  the  Episcopalians  against  the  enemies  of  both, 
the  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians.*  Among  the  evi- 
dences cited  as  proof  of  the  latter  assertion  is  the  following 
extract  from  an  author  writing  in  favor  of  the  Baptists :  "  The 
Fraternity,"  says  this  writer,  alluding  to  that  recently  formed 
between  the  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists,  "  last  Year 
have  sent  Letters  to  Baptist  Ministers  in  New  England,  request- 
ing their  Aid  against  the  Church  of  England.  But  truly  it  is 
the  Interest  of  the  Baptists  that  the  Church  of  England  should 
multiply  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  so  far  as  to  form 

1  Appeal  Farther  Defended,  144. 

2  See  below,  ch.  x. 

^  Appeal  Farther  Deferided,  145. 

^  A  later  passage  by  Chandler  states  facts  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  opti- 
mism of  these  utterances.  Referring  to  the  effect  of  the  Appeal,  he  says : 
"  What  shortly  after  ensued  on  the  Occasion,  what  inflammatory  periodical, 
Papers,  and  Pamphlets  from  different  Quarters,  were  issued  in  Answer  to  it,  is 
well  known.  An  Alarm  was  sounded  throughout  the  Colonies,  that  a  general 
Invasion  of  their  religious  Liberty  was  projected,  —  the  Minds  of  the  Populace 
were  inflamed  by  Arts  that  were  wicked  and  infamous,  —  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, the  whole  Order  of  Bishops,  and  the  Clergy  of  our  Convention  were 
shamefully  abused  in  the  Common  News-Papers  "  {^Ibid.  234) . 


1 86  THE  CHAJSTDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

a  Ballance  of  ecclesiastical  Power  there,  as  in  other  Colonies. 
And  as  for  Bishops,  they  are  welcome  there ;  their  coming 
thither  is  an  Object  worthy  of  Petitions  ;  we  cannot  be  worse 
off ;  we  may  be  better ;  they  are  Gentlemen  at  least,  and  have 
some  Generosity  for  vanquished  Enemies.  But  the  New-Eng- 
land People  (of  a  certain  Denomination)  are  supercilious  in 
Power  and  mean  in  Conquest.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  all 
the  Bishops  in  Old  England  have  not  done  the  Baptists  there 
so  much  Despite  for  80  Years  past  as  the  Presbyterians 
have  done  this  Year  to  the  Baptists  of  New-England."^  Yet, 
while  it  was  a  notorious  fact  that  the  Presbyterians  and  Congre- 
gationalists,  particularly  in  New  England,  where  they  were  in 
power,  had  been  strenuously  unrelenting  against  those  who 
professed  beliefs  contrary  to  their  own,  and  while  this  fact 
might  deprive  them  of  some  support  in  their  efforts  to  combat 
the  introduction  of  bishops,  this  quotation  is  significant  rather 
as  an  indication  of  hatred  to  the  Orthodox  Church  of  New 
England  than  as  an  evidence  of  friendship  to  the  cause  of  an 
American  episcopate.  Moreover,  although  a  New  England 
Baptist,  in  a  fit  of  rebellion  against  measures  of  oppression 
directed  against  him  in  that  particular  province,  might,  as  a 
means  of  securing  an  ally,  have  been  induced  to  write  such  lines 
as  the  above,  it  is  doubtful  how  far  the  opinions  which  he 
expressed  concerning  the  Church  of  England  were  general. 
Certainly  Semple's  History  of  the  Baptists,  which  details  the 
rigors  which  the  sect  suffered  under  the  estabhshment,  has  little 
good  to  say  about  the  ecclesiastical  rule  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 
The  Appeal  Farther  Defended  was  the  last  contribution  to 
what  may  be  specifically  termed  the  "  Chandler-Chauncy  con- 
troversy." Meantime,  however,  the  episcopal  question  had 
been  reopened  in  England,  leading  to  a  discussion  which,  from 
the  fact  that  Chandler  took  part  in  it,  may  be  considered  in 
this  connection.  The  occasion  for  this  new  outbreak  was  the 
pubHcation,  in  1769,  of  a  letter  by  Archbishop  Seeker  in  answer 
to  Walpole's  letter  of  May  29,    1750.^     Although  written  Janu- 

^  Appeal   Farther   Defended,    145-146,   citing     Pennsylvania    Chronicle, 
November  26,  1770. 
-  See  above,  p.  119. 


PUBLICATION-  OF  SECKER'S  LETTER   TO    IVALPOLE.       187 

ary  9,  1750-51,  its  contents,  in  deference  to  an  expressed  wish 
of  the  late  archbishop,  had  not  been  made  pubHc  until  after  his 
death. ^  Seeker's  argument,  having  been  composed  so  early  in 
the  discussion,  will  naturally  strike  one  who  has  followed  the 
controversy  through  its  various  stages  as  stale  and  unprofitable 
both  in  form  and  in  matter.  It  is  necessary,  however,  even  at 
the  risk  of  tediousness,  to  outline  its  main  points,  in  order  to 
appreciate  the  later  publications  attacking  and  defending  it. 

The  writer's  purpose  is  to  consider  whether  the  proposition 
to  send  two  or  three  bishops  to  America,  to  perform  the  episco- 
pal offices  and  to  exercise  such  jurisdiction  as  has  been  formerly, 
or  may  be  in  future,  exercised  by  the  Bishop  of  London's  com- 
missaries, would  be  reasonable  and  practicable ;  and  whether, 
as  Walpole  seems  to  apprehend,  the  power  acquired  by  such 
bishops,  once  established,  would,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be 
stretched  to  the  extent  of  introducing  exorbitant  ecclesiastico- 
political  innovations,  thereby  causing  uneasiness  both  in  England 
and  in  the  colonies.^ 

Of  the  "  reasonableness  of  the  proposal  abstractedly  consid- 
ered "  Seeker  thinks  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Walpole  himself, 
he  says,  admits  that  much,  and  there  has  been  scarcely  a  bishop 
of  the  Church  of  England  from  the  revolution  to  this  day  who 
has  not  desired  such  an  establishment.  Archbishop  Tennison, 
for  example,  who  was  certainly  no  high  churchman,  left  a  pro- 
vision in  his  will  for  the  advancement  of  the  cause.  It  may 
indeed  be  argued,  he  continued,  that  bishops  are  naturally  par- 
tial to  the  plan ;  but  to  such  objectors  he  points  out  that  the 
Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  consisting,  as  it  does,  partly 
of  inferior  clergy  and  partly  of  laymen,  can  hardly  be  suspected 
of  designing  to  advance  episcopal  authority  for  its  own  sake,  and 
yet  this  body,  almost  from  its  incorporation,  has  been  eager  for 
the  plan.^  Any  fair-minded  man,  he  goes  on,  must  see  that  for 
the  necessary  purposes  of  ordination,  confirmation,  and  discipline, 

^  See  the  advertisement  to  the  published  letter. 

'^Seeker,  Works,  vi.  492. 

^  Ibid.  496-497.  But  it  has  been  seen  (above,  p.  loi)  that  the  Society,  after 
its  defeat  in  17 14,  had  practically  ceased  to  agitate  the  question  until  Seeker 
himself  revived  it  by  his  sermon  in  1740. 


1 88  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

bishops  are  indispensable  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  colonies.^ 

Having  shown  that  the  demand  for  American  bishops  is  both 
just  and  reasonable,  Seeker  next  faces  the  objection  that  such 
an  establishment  may  be  attended  with  a  dangerous  increase  of 
the  church's  power  in  the  colonies.  He  sees  no  Hkelihood  or 
possibility  of  such  an  event.  The  commissaries  have  neither 
attempted  nor  been  able  to  extend  their  authority  beyond  its 
original  limits,  and  "  Bishops  will  be  still  more  narrowly  watched 
by  the  Governors,  by  other  Sects,  by  the  Laity,  and  even  the 
Clergy  of  their  own  Communion."  In  other  words,  even  if  the 
bishops  should  seek  to  extend  their  authority,  which  is  unlikely, 
checks  exist  adequate  to  defeat  any  such  attempt.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  however,  there  is  nothing  in  the  plan  to  excite  any 
apprehension  either  at  home  or  abroad.  There  neither  is  nor 
ever  has  been  any  design  to  tax  the  colonists  or  burden  the 
crown  for  the  support  of  the  bishops  to  be  settled  under  it. 
Indeed,  an  earlier  attempt  to  establish  a  bishopric  in  Virginia 
failed,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  endowment  was  to  be  out  of 
the  customs.^  The  present  plan  has  nothing  of  the  character  of 
a  state  establishment ;  it  need  not  go  to  Parhament,  since  the 
law  permits  the  ordination  of  suffragan  bishops  solely  with  the 
royal  approbation.  The  Bishop  of  London  can  send  the  suffra- 
gans thus  created  as  his  commissaries,  but  with  power  to  ordain, 
confirm,  and  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.^ 

1  It  had  been  argued  that  no  petitions  had  been  received  from  the  laity  or 
from  the  clergy  in  certain  quai'ters,  a  fact  which  showed  that  practically  all  the 
former,  and  at  least  a  portion  of  the  latter,  were  very  cool  toward  the  scheme. 
But,  according  to  Seeker,  the  lack  of  petitions,  far  from  indicating  such  a  state 
of  things,  might  be  explained  on  quite  other  grounds  ;  namely,  by  the  general 
neglect  of  mankind  for  spiritual  concerns,  by  the  fact  that  the  clergy  where 
the  church  was  established  enjoyed  more  liberty  and  power  without  the  epis- 
copal oversight,  and  by  a  disposition  to  leave  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  and  the  Society. 

2  Seeker  refers  to  the  occasion  when  the  Reverend  Alexander  Murray  was 
to  be  sent,  and  cites  as  his  authority  some  papers  of  Bishop  Gibson.  It  has 
been  seen  (above,  p.  90)  that  another  equally  possible  reason  was  assigned 
for  the  failure  of  this  plan. 

8  Compare  with  the  plan  of  Bishop  Compton  in  1707  (above,  pp.  97-98,  and 
below,  Appendix  A,  No.  iii.). 


BLACKBURNE'S  ''CRITICAL    COMMENTARY:'  189 

Finally,  not  only  is  the  demand  for  such  an  establishment 
reasonable,  not  only  is  it  in  its  aims  and  motives  independent  of 
any  political  design,  and  therefore  unlikely  to  be  opposed  by  the 
majority  of  the  colonists,  but  it  is  advisable  as  a  matter  of  public 
poHcy,  since  the  refusal  of  the  request  will  hurt  the  government 
more  in  the  eyes  of  the  Church  of  England  than  the  amount  of 
favor  which  the  policy  will  secure  from  the  dissenters  will  bene- 
fit. The  time  at  which  these  words  were  written  must  be  borne 
in  mind,  for,  as  has  been  seen,  later  events  prove  Walpole  to 
have  been  far  more  correct  than  Seeker  in  his  forecast  concern- 
ing the  attitude  of  public  opinion  on  the  question  at  issue. 

Such  is  an  outline  of  the  main  arguments  of  Seeker's  letter. 
The  year  after  its  pubHcation  Francis  Blackburne,  archdeacon 
of  Cleveland,  replied  with  A  Critical  Commentary.  He  begins  by 
hazarding  a  conjecture  that  Walpole  did  not  begin  the  discus- 
sion, since  the  ministers  of  state  were  not  then  anxious  to  offend 
the  colonists.  The  cause  of  the  trouble  should,  he  thinks,  be 
laid  rather  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  who,  as  diocesan  of  the 
colonial  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  would  naturally 
seek  by  all  means  in  his  power  to  raise  their  condition.^  But 
whoever  was  to  blame  for  starting  the  agitation  for  an  American 
episcopate,  Blackburne  thinks  that  all  must  lament  the  publica- 
tion of  Seeker's  letter  at  the  present  juncture,  when  the  colonists 
ought  not  to  be  unnecessarily  irritated.^ 

The  Critical  Commejttary  need  not  here  be  considered  in 
detail.  It  is  made  up  partly  of  a  rebuttal  of  the  arguments 
advanced  in  Seeker's  letter,  partly  of  expressions  of  apprehen- 
sion as  to  the  probable  outcome  of  an  episcopal  establishment, 
and  partly  of  charges  against  the  sincerity  of  its  advocates. 
The  writer's  remarks  under  the  last  two  heads  are  characteristic. 
He  regards  the  fact  that  the  bishops  are  to  be  appointed  purely 
on  the  approval  of  the  crown  as  far  from  quieting  ;  for  such  an 
arrangement  would  give  the  crown  all  the  more  chance  to  en- 
large its  powers,  should  it  find  them  insufficient  for  its  political 
purposes.^  Moreover,  he  refuses  to  trust  Seeker's  assurances  as 
to  the  limitation  of  the  authority  of  the  bishops  to  be  sent.  For 
his  own  part,  he  regards  the  whole  scheme  as  an  outcome  of  the 
^  Critical  Commentary,  6.  "^  Ibid.  8.  ^  Ibid.  28. 


190  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

machinations  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  for  it 
is  that  body  which  has  instructed  its  missionaries  to  stir  up  the 
colonists  to  petition  for  bishops :  Apthorp,  Chandler,  and  the 
others  were  only  instruments  in  its  hands ;  ^  and  indeed,  so 
ardent  and  powerful  an  advocate  as  Bishop  Sherlock,  to  whom 
the  matter  owes  much  of  the  attention  which  it  has  attracted  in 
recent  years,  proceeded  not  so  much  on  his  own  initiative  as  at 
the  incitement  of  the  Society.^ 

Blackburne  pointed  out,  more  clearly  than  any  one  else  had 
done,  the  motives  which  influenced  the  dissenters  in  England  to 
take  the  side  of  their  colonial  brethren.  "  They  knew,"  he  said, 
"  the  hardship  of  these  legal  disabilities  under  which  they  them- 
selves lay  at  home.  They  had  good  reason  to  believe  that  the 
influence  of  the  established  Hierarchy  contributed  to  continue 
this  grievance."  Their  brethren  in  America  were  as  yet  free 
from  the  incubus  of  episcopacy,  and  their  safety  lay  in  re- 
maining so.  "  If  Bishops  were  let  in  among  them,  and  particu- 
larly under  the  notion  of  presiding  in  established  Episcopal 
Churches,  there  was  the  highest  probability  they  would  take 
their  precedents  of  Government,  and  Discipline  from  the  Estab- 
lishment in  the  Mother  Country,  and  would  probably  never  be 
at  rest  "  till  they  had  themselves  secured  an  establishment  based 
on  an  exclusive  test.  English  dissenters,  then,  knowing  that 
their  brethren  across  the  water  were  of  their  mind,  had  deter- 
mined to  cooperate  with  them.^ 

Chandler,  who  had  some  time  ago  said  the  last  word  in  the 
disputation  with  Chauncy,  now  entered  the  Hsts  against  this  new 
opponent  of  his  cause.  In  1774  he  published  a  reply  to  Black- 
burne under  the  title  of  A  Free  Examination  of  the  Critical 
Coinmentary .  He  begins  by  citing  some  extracts  from  recent 
sermons  before  the    Society  for   Propagating   the   Gospel,    as 

^  Critical  Cominetitary,  65. 

2  He  informs  us  that  in  May,  1749,  Bishop  Sherlock,  while  in  conversation 
with  Mr.  Hooper,  one  of  the  council  of  Barbadoes,  said,  "  It  is  not  I  that 
send  Bishops  to  America,  it  is  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in 
foreign  Parts,  who  are  the  movers  of  this  matter"  {Ibid.  note).  One  would 
like  the  authority  for  this  statement. 

3  Critical  Commentary,  82-83.  Cf.  Mellen  Chamberlain,  John  Adams,  32, 
with  note,  citing  Blackburne. 


CHANDLER'S  ''FREE  EXAMINATIOIVP  19I 

evidence  of  the  purity  of  motive  of  responsible  persons  who 
desire  an  American  episcopate.^  In  almost  every  annual  ser- 
mon since  the  outbreak  of  the  Mayhew  controversy,  the  preacher 
before  the  Society  had  made  some  allusion  to  the  episcopal 
question  which  was  agitating  the  colonial  mind.  Their  general 
line  of  reasoning  is  already  familiar  to  us,  but  it  may  be  well  to 
give  a  word  to  each  of  the  more  important  utterances.  Dr. 
Terrick,  Bishop  of  London,  pointed  out  the  need  of  an  estabhsh- 
ment  for  promoting  "order  and  discipline,"  and  rejected  the 
imputation  of  an  intention  to  infringe  on  the  religious  liberties 
of  other  denominations.^  Dr.  Ewer,  Bishop  of  Llandoff,  con- 
fined himself  to  a  discussion  of  the  need  of  Episcopal  clergymen 
in  America,  the  lack-  of  whom  with  its  attendant  disadvantages 
he  attributed  to  the  want  of  bishops.^  Dr.  Green,  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  merely  emphasized  what  others  had  laid  stress  on ; 
namely,  the  injustice  of  that  condition  of  things  which  made  the 
Church  of  England  the  only  church  in  America  to  which  tolera- 
tion for  its  complete  system  was  not  allowed.*  Dr.  Newton, 
Bishop  of  Bristol,  pointed  out  that  "the  greatest  Want  of  all  is 
that  of  an  American  Bishop  for  the  Purposes  of  Confirmation, 
Ordination,  Visitation  of  the  Clergy,  and  other  ecclesiastical 
Offices,  without  the  least  Share  of  civil  Power  or  Jurisdiction 
whatever."  He  too  exclaimed  at  the  injustice  of  "depriving," 
as  he  termed  it,  one-third  of  the  ecclesiastical  population  of  their 
just  rights.^  Dr.  Keppel,  Bishop  of  Exeter,  desired  "  not  to 
ingros  Authority,  or  give  a  Check  to  Liberty  of  any  Sort," 
but  simply  hoped  "for  equal  Indulgence  with  others."^  Dr. 
Lowth,  Bishop  of  Oxford,  advocated  the  appointment  of  "  one 
or  more  resident  Bishops  "  solely  as  a  remedy  for  the  needs  of 
the  church  in  the  colonies.'''  Dr.  Moss,  Bishop  of  St.  David's, 
went  a  bit  farther  than  his  predecessors  in  hazarding  the  state- 
ment that  the  government  must   have  had   some   motives   for 

1  Free  Examination,  Introduction,  v.-xii. 

2  [bid.  v.,  citing  the  Society's  Abstract,  1764,  p.  34. 
^ Ibid,  vi.,  citing  Abstract,  1767,  p.  22. 

^  Ibid,  vii.,  citing  Abstract,  1768,  p.  22. 
^  Ibid,  viii.,  citing  Abstract,  \'j6(),  p.  26. 
^  Ibid,  ix.,  citing  Abstract,  1770,  p.  11. 
''Ibid.  X.,  citing  Abstract,  1771,  p.  14. 


192  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

"  withholding  this  Indulgence  [of  an  American  Episcopate]  "  ; 
but  whether  these  motives  arose  from  negligence  or  from  some 
other  cause,  he  would  not  venture  to  say.^  This  attempt  to 
demonstrate,  from  the  professions  of  the  leaders  of  the  church, 
that  political  interests  played  no  part  in  their  endeavors  to 
secure  bishops  for  America  is  the  most  important  part  of 
Chandler's  pamphlet.     The  rest  of  it  goes  over  old  ground. 

The  anti-episcopal  writers  for  the  London  CJironicle,  a  news- 
paper concerning  which  more  will  be  said  later,  attacked 
Seeker's  Letter,  with  the  asperity  with  which  they  were  ac- 
customed to  treat  anything  coming  from  the  pens  of  the  ad- 
vocates or  the  defenders  of  the  American  episcopal  scheme. 
One  contributor  says  that  the  writing  of  the  archbishop  indi- 
cates an  attempt  of  the  church  power  to  claim  an  alliance  with 
the  state,  under  the  cover  of  seeming  to  work  for  the  propa- 
gation of  the  gospel ;  and  that  such  an  alliance,  under  which 
English  nonconformists  have  suffered  in  times  past,  fills  the 
present  generation  with  dread  and  foreboding.^  Another  con- 
tributor asserts  that  it  has  been  proved  to  a  demonstration  by 
Hobart,  Mayhew,  and  Chauncy,  in  their  respective  controversies 
with  the  Society,  that  the  main  purpose  of  the  several  leaders  of 
that  body,  and  especially  of  the  late  Archbishop  Seeker,  has  been 
and  is,  not  so  much  to  spread  the  gospel  among  the  heathen, 
as  to  episcopize  the  colonists,  to  convert  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists,  to  "  persuade  Christians  to  become  Chris- 
tians," a  proceeding  totally  inconsistent  with  the  Society's 
charter  and  the  expectations  of  the  public,  its  contributors. 
It  is  all  a  farce,  he  maintains,  to  pretend  that  they  want  a 
bishop  in  America  for  the  sake  of  the  few  souls  of  the  Epis- 
copal persuasion  there,  to  convey  to  them  "  the  means  of 
sacramental  grace,"  as  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  expressed  it  in  his 
recent  sermon  before  the  Society ;  it  is,  rather,  "  to  reduce  the 
Sectaries,  to  extend  the  dominion  of  the  Church,  and  to  bring 
all  to  bow  their  knees  to  them,  that  the  late  primate  and  others 
have  been  so  eager  to  carry  their  point."  Otherwise,  he  says, 
"they  might  have  been   provided  with  a  bishop,  either  from 

^  Free  Examination,  Introduction,  xi.,  citing  Abstract,  1772,  p.  28. 
"^London  Chronicle,  March  22,  1770. 


REFER EN'CES  TO   THE  OLD  LA[/DIAI\r  PROJECT.         193 

among  themselves  or  one  privately  sent  hence.  But  nothing 
but  a  State  Bishop,  with  lordly  titles,  unknown  in  New  Testa- 
ment Code,  will  go  down.  And  then  they  will  boast,  indeed, 
that  the  Church  established  in  the  Colonies,  and  of  Conse- 
quence all  the  civil  offices  of  the  country  belong  to  them  alone, 
or  to  such  as  go  through  their  turnpike." 

These  statements  are  not  only  unreasonable,  but  in  one  re- 
spect they  are  a  palpable  misrepresentation  of  facts.  Any  one 
not  blind  with  partisan  frenzy  would  have  seen  and  admitted 
that  it  was  impossible  for  Episcopalians,  under  the  system  to 
which  they  professed  adherence,  to  choose  bishops  from  their 
own  midst.  As  to  accepting  a  bishop  privately  sent  from  Eng- 
land, provided  he  were  properly  consecrated,  no  churchman  on 
either  side  of  the  water  had  advanced  any  objection  ;  on  the 
contrary,  more  than  one  advocate  for  the  American  episcopate 
had  suggested  such  an  arrangement.  This,  indeed,  was  the 
gist  of  the  project  for  bishops,  more  than  once  alluded  to  in 
these  pages ;  and  the  majority  of  the  opponents  of  the  plan, 
fearing  the  consequences  which  the  step  would  involve,  had  ob- 
jected to  even  this.  Such  apprehensions  may  or  may  not  have 
been  well  grounded ;  but  certainly  it  was  the  opponents,  and 
not  the  favorers,  of  bishops  who  had  contended  against  a  trial 
of  the  experiment. 

The  same  correspondent  of  the  Chronicle  alludes  also  to  the 
old  Laudian  project,  and  sarcastically  laments  that  the  prelate 
who  had  the  chief  hand  in  driving  the  ancestors  of  the  colo- 
nists into  the  deserts  of  America  could  not  have  lived  to  wit- 
ness the  present  efforts  of  his  followers  in  continuation  of  his 
scheme,  which  was  interrupted  by  the  outbreak  in  Scotland. 
The  archbishop's  plan,  he  thinks,  had  it  not  "been  strangled 
in  its  first  conception,"  might  have  altered  the  whole  course  of 
English  colonial  history.^ 

^  "  I  apprehend,"  he  says,  "  that  if  Laud  had  not  had  other  work  cut  out  for 
him,  in  consequence  of  pushing  his  beloved  prelacy  too  vehemently  upon 
the  Scotch,  but  had  pursued  his  plan  in  New  England,  he  would  soon  have 
unpeopled  that  infant  colony,  and  we  should  now  have  heard  no  disturbance 
from  that  quarter,  which  some  people  might  have  been  pleased  with.  Though 
I  own  myself,  I  think  it  for  our  honour,  that  our  fellow-citizens  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Atlantic  make  such  a  noble  stand  for  their  civil  and  religious  liber- 

13 


194  THE  CHANDLER-CHAUNCY  CONTROVERSY. 

Such  endeavors  as  Archbishop  Seeker's,  writes  another,  "  ad- 
minister fresh  fuel  to  a  flame  too  ready  to  break  out,  and  too 
alarming  not  to  give  every  well-wisher  of  his  country  very 
serious  thoughts."  The  "passion  and  vehemence"  with  which 
the  project  has  been  espoused  and  advocated  by  many  of  the 
Church  of  England  missionaries  is,  he  says,  "  one  great  ingredi- 
ent in  the  jealousy  entertained  by  the  Colonists  for  some  time 
of  the  designs  of  the  Mother  Country."  For  this  reason  he 
regards  it  as  particularly  unfortunate  that  the  matter  should  be 
stirred  up  again,  when  councils  of  peace  and  reconciliation  be- 
tween the  mother  country  and  her  American  children  have 
become  so  necessary  and  desirable.^ 

Such  was  the  controversy  occasioned  by  the  publication  of 
Seeker's  letter.  It  was  but  a  ramification,  or  perhaps  one  might 
say  an  echo,  of  those  stirring  discussions  which  had  gone  before. 
From  this  time  the  near  approach  of  the  Revolution,  bringing 
with  it  questions  of  more  immediate  and  pressing  interest, 
crowded  the  matter  of  the  introduction  of  bishops  into  the 
background ;  and  yet,  during  a  certain  period  in  the  struggle, 
the  ecclesiastical  question  was  as  hotly  agitated  as  any  other 
then  current.  To  appreciate  the  extent  to  which  public  opinion 
was  stirred  up  over  the  episcopal  issue,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
turn  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  virulent  newspaper  battle 
which  raged  during  the  years  1 768-1 769. 

ties,  and  New  England  may  contribute  to  save  Old  England.  .  .  .  Our  church- 
men have  not  taken  warning  by  Laud's  fate,"  he  continues,  "...  for  these 
last  ten  years  they  have  pursued  their  episcopizing  plan  more  vehemently  than 
ever,  and  have  also  joined  in  the  cry  against  the  Americans  if  they  have  not 
taken  the  lead  in  it,  and  blacken'd  and  abus'd  them  in  all  their  publications, 
and  have  perhaps  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  virulence  that  some  men  show 
against  them.  But,  avert  it,  Heaven!  that  Heylyn's  military  forces  should  be 
adopted  or  continued  to  carry  Episcopacy,  or  any  other  measure  in  our  colo- 
nies. Amyntor  Americanus"  (Letter  iii.  to  the  London  Chronicle,  ]\i\y  6^ 
1770). 

^  "  Phormio,"  in  the  London  Chronicle,  September  8,  1770. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

THE   NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY,^   1768-1769. 

Discussion  on  the  subject  of  introducing  American  bishops 
first  became  general  in  the  newspapers  in  1768,  and  reached  its 
height  during  the  course  of  this  and  the  following  year.  It  was 
ushered  in  by  two  series  of  articles :  one  in  the  New  York 
Gazette,  under  the  signature  of  "  The  American  Whig  " ;  the 
other  in  the  Pennsylvania  Journal,  under  the  signature  of  "The 
Centinel"  (or  "Sentinel").  Though  the  several  numbers  of 
each  series  were  evidently  written  by  different  hands,  the  chief 
contributors  under  these  respective  names  seem  to  have  been 
William  Livingston  and  Francis  Alison.  The  latter,  vice-provost 
of  the  College  of  Philadelphia,  was  assisted  by  some  of  his  Pres- 
byterian brethren,  particularly  John  Dickinson,  the  celebrated 
author  of  The  Farmer  s  Letters}  The  ostensible  purpose  of 
these  earlier  articles  was  to  answer  Chandler's  Appeal  to  tJie 

^  Though  various  single  sets  of  newspapers  have  been  used,  particularly  a 
complete  file  of  the  London  Chronicle,  the  main  source  has  been  a  contempo- 
raneous reprint  entitled  A  Collection  of  Tracts  from  the  late  Neiuspapers,  &^c., 
containing  particularly  The  American  Whig,  A  Whip  for  the  American 
Whig,  with  some  other  Pieces,  on  the  Subject  of  the  Residence  of  Protestant 
Bishops  in  the  American  Colonies,  and  in  Answer  to  the  Writers  who  opposed 
it,  S^c.  (2  vols.,  New  York,  1 768-1 769;  "printed  by  John  Holt,  at  the  Ex- 
change"). This  book  is  now  extremely  rare.  The  articles  by  the  "American 
Whig  "  and  the  "Kick  for  the  Whipper"  originally  appeared  in  Parker's  New- 
York  Gazette,  those  by  the  "Whip  for  the  American  Whig"  in  Gaine's 
New  York  Gazette,  those  by  the  "Centinel"  and  "  Anti-Centinel "  in  the 
Pennsylvania  journal,  those  by  the  "  Anatomist "  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette 
(founded  by  Benjamin  Franklin).  Other  articles  on  the  subject  appeared  in 
the  New  York  fournal,  the  Pennsylvania  Chronicle,  the  Boston  Gazette,  and 
the  Connecticut  Journal,  the  latter  published  in  New  Haven.  Throughout  the 
chapter  the  extracts,  whether  taken  from  the  Collection  or  not,  are  ascribed 
to  the  newspapers  in  which  they  first  appeared. 

1  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  153  ff.  Compare  a 
letter  from  Chandler  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society,  June  24,  1768,  printed  in 
S.  A.  Clark,  History  ofSt.John''s  Church,  135-138. 


196  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

Public,  though  it  has  been  conjectured  that  the  disappointment 
occasioned  by  the  failure  of  the  New  York  Presbyterians  in  i  y^j 
to  obtain  their  charter  of  incorporation,  a  defeat  which  they 
attributed  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  may  have  had  some  influ- 
ence in  the  matter.^  The  "American  Whig"  was  answered 
by  "Timothy  Tickle"  in  "A  Whip  for  the  American  Whig," 
who  was  in  turn  called  to  account  by  "  Sir  Isaac  Foot"  in  "A 
Kick  for  the  Whipper."  The  chief  opponent  of  the  "  Centinel" 
was  Dr.  William  Smith,  provost  of  the  College  of  Philadelphia, 
who  wrote  a  series  of  essays  under  the  pseudonym  of  "  The 
Anatomist." 

The  "  American  Whig "  made  his  first  bow  to  the  public 
March  14,  1768.  He  announced  the  appearance  of  Chandler's 
first  book,  and  after  a  satirical  characterization  of  its  contents 
concluded  as  follows :  "  Considering  the  encroachments  that 
have  lately  been  made  on  our  civil  liberties,  and  that  we  can 
scarcely  obtain  redress  against  one  injurious  project  but  another 
is  forming  against  us  —  considering  the  poverty  and  distress  of 
the  colonies  by  the  restrictions  on  our  trade,  and  how  peculiarly 
necessary  it  is,  in  these  times  of  common  calamity,  to  be  united 
amongst  ourselves,  one  could  scarcely  have  imagined  that  the 
most  ambitious  ecclesiastic  should  be  so  indifferent  about  the 
true  interest  of  his  native  country  as  to  sow,  at  this  critical 
juncture,  the  seeds  of  universal  discord;  and  besides  the  depri- 
vation of  our  civil  liberties,  lend  his  helping  hand  to  involve  us 
in  ecclesiastical  bondage  into  the  bargain.  Is  this  a  time  to 
think  of  episcopal  palaces,  of  pontifical  revenues,  of  spiritual 
courts,  and  all  the  pomp,  grandeur,  luxury,  and  regalia  of  an 
American  Lambeth }  'Tis  true  the  pamphlet  is  specious,  and 
appears  to  ask  nothing  but  what  is  highly  reasonable ;  and 
could  any  man,  above  the  capacity  of  an  Ideot,  really  persuade 
himself,  the  Doctor  2iXi^  the  Conveiitio7i  would  content  themselves 
with  a  Bishop,  so  limited  and  curtailed  as  he  is  pleased  to  repre- 
sent his  future  Lordship ;  it  were  manifest  injustice  to  deny 
them  what  in  their  opinion  their  eternal  salvation  so  greatly 
depends  upon.     But  it  is  not  the  primitive  Christian  Bishop 

1  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  153.  Cf.  above, 
p.  181. 


NEW  PHASES  OF  THE  EPISCOPAL   CONTROVERSY.       197 

they  want.  It  is  the  modern,  splendid,  opulent,  court  favoured, 
law-dignified,  superb,  tnagnificent, powerful  prelate,  on  which  their 
hearts  are  so  intent.  And  that  such  a  Bishop  would  be  one  of 
the  worst  commodities  that  can  possibly  be  imported  into  a  new 
country,  and  must  inevitably  prove  absolute  desolation  and  ruin 
to  this,  I  shall  abundantly  evince  in  the  course  of  these  specu- 
lations." 1 

This  utterance  marks  a  new  development  in  the  discussion. 
Hitherto,  though  the  apprehension  of  an  ecclesiastico-political 
tyranny  had  been  the  essential  underlying  cause  of  the  opposi- 
tion to  bishops,  particularly  in  New  England,  the  issue  had 
been  obscured  by  a  network  of  theological  polemics.  During 
the  period  from  Hobart  to  Chauncy,  however,  the  political 
element  was  steadily  pushing  its  way  to  the  front,  and  now 
for  the  first  time  it  presented  itself  squarely  and  unequivocally 
as  the  chief  topic  of  consideration.  In  spite  of  the  efforts  of 
the  Episcopalians,  the  Independents  had  at  last  succeeded  in 
shifting  the  basis  of  the  argument. 

Not  only  had  the  controversy  undergone  a  change  of  character ; 
it  had  also  become  a  matter  of  more  general  interest.  The 
earlier  discussions  had  been  confined  almost  solely  to  pam- 
phlets, and  hence,  it  is  safe  to  say,  had  claimed  the  attention  of 
not  more  than  a  very  narrow  circle  of  readers.  With  the 
entrance  of  the  newspapers  into  the  lists,  however,  the  public 
eye  was  arrested.  For  the  first  time  people  began  to  discuss 
the  question  in  their  homes,  in  the  coffee-houses,  on  the  street 
corners.  Once  a  subject  of  purely  spiritual  concern,  it  now 
assumed  a  prominent  place  among  the  burning  questions  of  the 
hour,  to  influence  them  or  to  be  influenced  by  them,  as  the  case 
might  be. 

Some  four  numbers  of  the  "American  Whig"  series  had 
already  appeared  when  "  Timothy  Tickle  "  began  to  wield  his 
"Whip  for  the  American  Whig."  His  appearance  on  the  scene 
gave  the  "Whig"  occasion  to  reiterate,  this  time  in  language 
more  stirring  than  before,  his  warning  cry  against  the  danger 
which  menaced  the  country.  "  You  are  yet  to  be  chastised 
only  with  whips,"  he  says,  a  propos  of  the  name  chosen  by  his 

^  "American  Whig,"  No.  i.,  Parker's  New  York  Gazette,  Marcli  14,  1768. 


198  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

antagonist ;  "  but  depend  upon  it,  when  the  apostolical  monarchs 
are  come  over,  and  well  established  in  their  American  dominions, 
you,  and  such  as  you,  will  be  chastised  with  scorpions.  But  this 
is  not  all :  the  bcllum  episcopale  will  doubtless  be  declared  with 
every  circumstance  of  awful  pomp  ;  and  this  extensive  conti- 
nent may  soon  be  alarmed  with  the  thund'ring  signal,  the 
szvord  of  the  Lord,  and  of  the  Bishop.  Then,  O  dreadful ! 
The  torrent  of  episcopal  vengeance !  Then  all  who  will  not 
be  so  senseless  as  to  adore  the  mitre  and  surplice,  and  dedicate 
both  their  consciences  and  their  purses  to  his  episcopal  Majesty, 
may  lay  their  account  with  —  with  what?  with  something  I 
will  not  yet  particularly  name,  but  what  one  may  easily  discover, 
by  turning  over  a  Church  history  or  two.  This  may  be  the  fate 
of  many,  unless  indulgent  heaven  interpose,  by  not  suffering  the 
right  reverend  and  holy  tyrants  to  plunge  their  spiritual  swords 
in  the  souls  of  their  fellow  creatures ;  or,  if  this  is  permitted,  by 
determining  the  secular  powers,  not  to  suffer  their  anathemas  to 
be  executed  to  the  utmost  limits  of  their  severity.  I  know  what 
I  am  saying,  Americans  shall  feel  the  truth  of  what  I  have  now 
surmised,  at  least  in  part,  if  they  do  not  now  bestir  themselves, 
and  unite  as  one  man  to  oppose  the  erection  of  spiritual 
monarchies,  with  all  the  heroism  they  would  display  in  oppos- 
ing  a   formidable    array   of    dons   and   monsieurs''  ^     Here   is 

1" Remarks  on  the  title  of  'A  Whip  for  the  American  Whig,'"  Parker's 
New  York  Gazette,  April  4,  1768.  Hawks,  who  quotes  the  extract  and  gives 
the  above  reference  (see  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections, 
i.  144,  note  i),  has  taken  it,  not  from  the  Gazette,  but  from  a  garbled  version 
in  Inglis's  Vindication,  Introduction,  vi.  In  the  Gazette  for  April  18  the 
"Whig"  gives  another  sample  of  his  eloquence  in  the  same  strain  :  "Let  my 
lords  the  bishops,"  he  says,  "be  once  landed  and  fortified  in  their  palaces, 
guarded  by  their  dependents,  and  supported  by  their  courts,  and  instead  of  this 
coaxing  and  trimming  we  shall  soon  hear  the  thunder  of  excommunication 
uttered  with  all  the  confidence  and  pride  of  security.  The  soft  bleatings  of 
the  lamb  will  be  changed  into  the  terrible  howling  of  the  wolf;  and  every 
poor  parson  whose  head  never  felt  the  weight  of  a  bishop's  hand  will  soon 
know  the  power  of  his  pastoral  staiT,  and  the  arm  of  the  magistrate  into  the 
bargain.  .  .  .  Without  the  knowledge  of  mankind  it  is  impossible  to  govern 
them  well.  This  necessary  accomplishment  seldom  falls  to  the  lot  of  specu- 
lative mortals  immured  in  a  study.  Hence  their  conceit,  contradiction,  and 
obstinacy.     Give  the  reins  to  one  of  these  book-worms,  and  he  will  attempt 


THE  POLITICAL  MOTIVES  OF  THE  "  WHIG:'  199 

another  of  his  tocsins  :  "  A  bishop  and  his  officers,  independent 
of  the  people  !  "  he  cries  ;  "  I  tremble  at  the  thought  of  such  a 
powerful  spy,  in  a  country  just  forming  a  state  of  soundness 
and  stability.  Rouse  then,  Americans !  You  have  as  much 
to  fear  from  such  a  minister  of  the  Church  as  you  had  lately 
from  a  minister  of  state;  and  whether  this  project  is  not  a 
device  of  the  latter,  by  dividing  us  to  favour  his  designs,  tho' 
he  is  now  in  disgrace,  is  submitted  to  your  wisdom,  to  discern 
and  prevent."  ^ 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  such  utterances  as  these  were  not 
the  aberrations  of  a  soHtary  disordered  fancy.  In  one  form  or 
another  they  were  made  again  and  again,  and  they  were  con- 
sidered, discussed,  and  repeated  seriously,  if  not  soberly,  by 
earnest  and  patriotic  men.  We  know  now  that  this  conjunction 
of  ecclesiastical  and  political  motives  in  the  Enghsh  colonial 
policy  was  a  pure  figment  of  the  imagination.  But,  though  it  is 
certain  that  there  was  no  basis  in  fact  for  the  suspicion  that  the 
English  state  authorities  as  such  were  in  any  way  concerned  in 
the  episcopal  project,  it  is  equally  certain  that  their  complicity 
was  suspected  by  a  large  proportion  of  the  American  public ; 
and  it  is  a  historical  fact  that,  however  unfounded  this  mistrust 
may  have  been,  it  had  no  small  influence  in  alienating  the 
colonists  from  the  mother  country  at  this  critical  juncture. 

If  any  doubt  the  importance  which  the  ecclesiastical  side  of 
the  question  had  assumed  in  contemporary  politics,  let  them 
examine  the  motives  which  led  the  "  American  Whig  "  to  under- 
take his  task.  His  aim,  as  he  informs  his  readers,  is  to  advocate 
"the  general  liberties  "  of  his  fellow-subjects  in  North  America. 
To  this  end  he  has  chosen  the  particular  subject  of  the  Ameri- 
can episcopate  and  a  consideration  of  Dr.  Chandler's  Appeal  to 
the  Public  in  favor  of  it,  since  he  esteems  the  question  to  be  one 
of  greater  importance  in  its  consequences  to  his  native  country 
"  than  the  imposition  of  any  customs,  or  commercial  restrictions, 

to  drive  the  chariot  of  the  sun :  let  him  be  an  ecclesiastic  besides,  and  im- 
pelled by  the  two  irresistible  momentums  of  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation 
of  souls,  and  how  can  he  refrain  from  adopting  the  Popish  comment  upon  the 
text,  compel  them  to  come  in  !  " 

^  "American  Whig,"  No.  v.,  Parker's  IVew  York  Gazette,  April  11,  1768. 


200  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

which  affect  not  the  right  of  conscience."  ^  It  is  possible  that 
the  intention  of  many,  perhaps  of  the  author  of  these  words, 
was  precisely  the  opposite  of  that  here  stated ;  it  may  be  that, 
actuated  primarily  by  an  uncompromising  hostility  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  bishops,  they  artfully  coupled  the  episcopal  question  with 
the  political  in  order  to  secure  its  certain  defeat.  The  question 
is  hard  to  answer.  However  one  looks  at  the  matter,  whether 
he  gives  the  priority  to  the  one  or  the  other  impulse,  the  main 
conclusion  must  remain  the  same,  —  that  the  ecclesiastical  ele- 
ment was  playing  a  large  part  in  contemporary  politics. 

Dr.  Chandler  had  asserted  that  there  was  little  opposition  to 
the  project  among  the  people  at  large.  This  statement  was 
strenuously  contradicted  by  the  "  American  Whig."  He  admits 
that,  before  the  public  was  informed  of  the  seven  famous  peti- 
tions and  of  the  united  attempts  of  the  clergy  to  introduce 
bishops  into  the  country,  the  Doctor  had  not  heard  of,  or  per- 
haps foreseen,  "  any  clamor  on  this  account  " ;  but  now,  after 
these  events  and  since  the  publication  of  the  Appeal,  he  appeals 
to  him  whether  "  a  very  general  uneasiness  is  not  visible  among 
the  people,"  and  "  a  general  popular  opposition  expressed 
against  his  episcopal  project,  among  all  ranks  of  men,  as  they 
become  daily  more  diffusively  acquainted  with  the  reality  of  the 
design."  He  is  sure  that  the  Doctor  will  find  himself  grossly 
mistaken  in  his  estimate  of  the  tame  acquiescence  of  the  inhab- 
itants, and  moreover,  "  that  if  the  zealous  opponents  of  his  Amer- 
ican episcopate  merit  the  genteel  appellation  of  '  noisy  hot-heads 
and  pragmatical  enthusiasts,'  he  will  hear  of  not  a  few  such 
among  the  lay  members  of  his  own  communion."  Not  only  are 
the  laity  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Virginia ^  "warmly  and 
almost  universally  opposed  to  it,"  he  says,  but  there  is  an  ex- 
treme likeHhood  that  a  majority  of  the  American  Episcopalians 
throughout  the  colonies  are  equally  hostile.  "  Should  any 
British  ministry  therefore  be  found  so  weak,  or  so  corrupt,  as 
to  betray  the  true  interest,  and  disregard  the  tranquility  of  the 
provinces  by  the  estabhshmentof  spiritual  lordships,"  concludes 
the  "Whig,"  "for  my   part  I  should  conceive  no  scene  more 

^"American  Whig,"  No.  x.,  Ibid.  May  i6,  1768. 
2  For  Virginia,  see  below,  ch.  x. 


THE  APPEARANCE  OF  THE  "  WHIP.''  201 

likely  to  open  than  such  a  one  as  we  have  recently  seen ;  I 
mean  the  conduct  of  the  populace  with  respect  to  the  officers 
appointed  under  the  late  unpopular  statute.^  Nor  would  I  be 
answerable  for  the  safety  of  the  ablest  prelate  that  ever  wore  a 
mitre,  was  he  to  arrive  in  this  country,  under  the  character  of  a 
Protestant  A^nerican  BisJiopJ''^  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
these  are  the  utterances  of  a  bitter  partisan  ;  but,  in  spite  of 
their  extravagance  of  expression,  they  must  not  be  relegated  to 
the  realm  of  ungrounded  supposition  and  surmise.  What  is 
said  about  the  probable  attitude  of  the  majority  of  the  Church 
of  England  laity  was  no  doubt  true,  assuredly  so  in  the  case  of 
Virginia.  The  most  interesting  point  about  the  passage,  how- 
ever, is  the  threat  conveyed  in  the  concluding  sentences. 

Meanwhile,  as  has  been  said,  the  "Whip  for  the  American 
Whig  "  had  entered  the  fray.  This  author  did  not  confine  him- 
self to  the  "  Whig,"  but  included  the  "  Centinel "  also  in  his 
chastisement.  He  begins  to  write,  he  announces,  because  "  it  is 
high  time  for  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  whose 
lenity  has  been  much  and  often  abused  by  them,  to  vindicate 
themselves  from  the  false  aspersions  of  these  enemies  to  peace, 
and  administer  some  wholesome  discipline  to  the  author,  or 
authors  of  the  American  WJiig  —  which  paper  is  to  be  the 
future  vehicle  of  their  maHce."  The  following  is  a  good 
sample  of  the  "Whip's"  method  of  criticism:  "No.  I.  [of  the 
"American  Whig"]  is,"  he  says,  "stuffed  with  low,  spurious 
witticisms,  misrepresentations,  scurrility,  buffoonery,  falshood, 
abuse,  and  slander.  But  to  pass  by  all  these,  the  author  deserves 
flagellation  for  his  blunders  with  which  this  piece  is  plentifully 
begrimed.  ...  It  is  more  than  probable,"  he  continues,  "that 
the  same  motives  set  some  Philadelphia  engineers  to  work,  in 
writing  a  paper  called  the  Centinel.  .  .  .  No.  I.  .  .  .  has  some- 
what more  of  the  appearance  of  reasoning  than  the  Whig;  but 
breaths  the  same  rancorous,  insolent  spirit;  and  plentifully 
abounds  in  misrepresentations,  impertinence,  nonsense,  &c.  &c."  ^ 

1  The  Stamp  Act. 

2"  American  Whig,"  No.  x.,  Parker's  New  York  Gazette,  May  i6,  1768. 
3 '"Whip   for  the  American  Whig,"  No.  i.,  Gaine's  New   York  Gazette, 
April  4,  1768. 


202  THE  NEWSPAPER    CONTROVERSY. 

Thus  began  the  duel  of  words  between  the  two  chief  oppo- 
nents, the  "  American  Whig "  and  the  "Whip  for  the  Ameri- 
can Whig."  None  of  the  arguments  advanced  on  either  side 
contain  much  that  is  new  ;  indeed,  the  whole  newspaper  discus- 
sion is  in  no  way  striking  for  the  cogency  or  the  logic  of  its 
reasoning.  Its  chief  interest  and  value  consists  in  the  picture 
which  it  gives  of  contemporaneous  methods  of  discussion,  and 
the  light  which  it  flashes  upon  the  popular  attitude  toward  the 
episcopal  question. 

The  most  logical  specimen  of  argumentation  —  in  fact,  one 
of  the  few  contributions  which  can  be  dignified  by  the  name  of 
argument  at  all  —  is  an  article  which  appeared  under  the  title 
"  A  Short  Way  to  End  Strife  now  it  is  Meddled  with."  The 
author  presents  his  case  under  the  form  of  ten  propositions,  as 
follows :  — 

"  I.  That  the  convention^  desire  an  American  Bishop,  is  cer- 
tain. 

"  2,  That  they  declare,  that  they  only  want  dipritnitive  Bishop, 
is  certain. 

"  3.    That  they  really  mean  what  they  declare,  is  uncertain. 

"4.  That  a  modern  English  Bishop  would  be  dangerous  to 
the  religious  rights  and  privileges  of  all  the  Non-Episcopalians 
in  America,  is  certain. 

"  5.  That  they  ought,  therefore,  in  justice  to  themselves  and 
their  posterity,  and  according  to  the  rules  of  common  prudence, 
to  be  alarmed  about  their  religious  liberty,  and  oppose  the  pro- 
ject of  introducing  a  Bishop  into  America ;  till  they  have  suffi- 
'  cient  security  that  he  will  be  only  3.  primitive  Bishop,  is  certain. 

"  6.  That  the  Tory  scribblers,  for  representing  them  as  dis- 
loyal subjects,  for  taking  such  alarm,  and  as  a  faction  against 
religion,  the  church,  and  the  clergy,  are  extremely  abusive,  and 
rather  exasperate  than  allay  the  ferment,  is  certain. 

"  7.  That  the  convention,  as  honest  men,  ought  to  give  such 
security  before  they  can  expect  our  acquiescence  in  their  project, 
is  certain. 

"  8.    That  they  have  not  hitherto  done  it,  is  certain. 

1 "  The  Convention  of  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey."  See 
above,  pp.  164-165,  and  below,  pp.  215-216. 


THE  ''CENT/NEDS''   OPENING  ARTICLE.  203 

"  9.  That  until  it  is  done,  the  opposition  will  proceed ;  and 
may  be  attended  with  very  disagreeable  consequences,  is  highly 
probable. 

"  10.  That  when  it  is  done,  the  controversy  ought  to  cease, 
is  certain."  ^ 

This  stands  out  from  the  midst  of  the  confused  and  abusive 
utterances  of  the  period  as  a  coherent  and  rational  presenta- 
tion of  the  question  at  issue.  Nevertheless,  it  is  plain  that  it 
offered  no  solution  of  the  difficulty;  for  the  fears  of  those  op- 
posed to  the  episcopal  project,  real  as  they  might  have  seemed 
to  their  possessors,  were  vague  and  indefinite ;  hence  no  con- 
ceivable guarantee  which  the  episcopal  party  could  have  given 
them  would  have  been  regarded  as  satisfactory. 

It  will  be  hardly  worth  while  to  examine  the  effusions  of 
those  who  ranged  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  "  Whig  "  and 
the  "Whip"  respectively,  for  they  present  practically  no  new 
arguments,  and  are  distinguished  from  their  predecessors  only 
in  being  more  trivial  and  abusive  in  their  remarks.  The 
"  Whip "  characterized  "  Sir  Isaac  Foot,"  who  had  taken  it 
upon  himself  to  administer  sundry  "  kicks  "  to  his  opponent,  as 
"that  lowest  and  most  despicable  of  all  low  and  despicable 
scribblers."  ^  But  no  one  of  the  participants  in  this  war  of  words 
was  in  a  position  to  criticise  the  others  fairly :  foulness,  scurril- 
ity, and  persiflage  dominated  the  utterances  of  each  and  all. 

Meanwhile,  the  controversy  was  raging  with  equal  violence  in 
another  quarter.  A  few  days  after  the  "  Whig "  opened  the 
subject  in  the  New  York  Gazette,  the  "  Centinel "  published  his 
first  piece  in  a  Philadelphia  newspaper.  His  professed  pur- 
pose was  to  put  several  questions  so  that  the  people  might  be 
better  able  to  judge  "  whether  the  apprehensions  on  account  of 
our  civil  Liberties,  which  this  avowed  application  has  raised  in  the 
minds  of  many  people,  be  well  or  ill  founded."  The  "  Centinel  " 
shows  himself  more  frankly  uncompromising  than  any  of  his 
predecessors,  declaring  that  he  and  those  of  his  way  of  thinking 
will  under  no  considerations  listen  to  the  plan  for  bishops,  be 
the  arguments    and     assurances   what  they   may.     "  Let    the 

1  Parker's  New  York  Gazette,  May  23,  1768. 
^Gaine's  New  York  Gazette,  August  22,  1768. 


204  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

Doctor^  flatter  as  much  as  he  pleases,"  he  says,  "if  ever  the 
attempt  be  made,  he  will  find  that  the  prejudices  and 
objections  of  most  of  our  Colonies  are  too  deeply  rooted  and 
too  well  founded  for  them  ever  to  submit  quietly  to  an  American 
Episcopate,  established  over  them,  even  by  act  of  Parliament ; 
this  would  be  to  destroy  their  charters,  laws,  and  their  very  con- 
stitutions ;  and  it  will  be  well  if  the  Doctor  and  his  associates 
are  not  considered  as  abettors  of  Mr.  Greenville  and  those 
Enemies  of  America  who  are  exerting  their  utmost  endeavours 
to  strip  us  of  our  most  sacred,  invaluable,  and  inherent  Rights ; 
to  reduce  us  to  the  state  of  slaves;  and  to  tax  us  by  laws,  to 
which  we  never  have  assented,  nor  can  assent."  ^ 

The  whole  argument  of  the  "  Centinel "  is,  to  an  even 
greater  degree  than  that  of  the  "Whig,"  based  upon  an 
assumption  of  the  close  connection  between  the  two  questions, 
the  religious  and  the  political.  From  the  general  principles  of 
liberty,  he  maintains,  Parliament  ought  not  to  interfere  in  the 
civil  freedom  of  the  colonies,  and  any  application  to  that 
"august  body,"  not  only  to  make  laws  for  them  but  also  to 
establish  among  them  any  form  of  church  discipline,  deserves 
to  be  treated  as  an  attack  upon  their  civil  liberties.^  His  aim, 
he  professes  again  and  again,  is  not  to  combat  any  religious 
denomination  or  to  oppugn  the  theological  opinions  of  any  man 
or  set  of  men,  but  to  defend  the  liberties  of  his  country.  The 
point  in  dispute,  as  he  views  it,  is  not  concerning  a  bishop  or 
concerning  episcopal  discipline  as  such,  but  as  to  the  manner  of 
introducing  the  bishop  and  establishing  the  discipline  in  Amer- 
ica ;  and  he  hopes  that  "  the  friends  and  lovers  of  America " 
will  consider  themselves  no  further  concerned  in  the  contro- 
versy than  as  it  relates  to  civil  liberty.^  Though  some  of  the 
distinctions  which  he  formulates  are  a  bit  too  fine  to  be  appre- 
ciated, the  main  trend  of  his  argument  shows  clearly  enough 
that  the  theological  aspect  of  the  question  had  become  thor- 
oughly absorbed  in  the  political. 

1  Dr.  Chandler. 

2  "Centinel,"  No.  i.,  Pennsylvania  Journal,  March  24,  1768. 
3 "Centinel,"  No.  vii.,  Ibid.  May  5,  1768. 

^"Centinel,"  No.  viii.,  Ibid.  May  12,  1768. 


THE  ''CENTINEUS''  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT.  205 

The  "  Centinel  "  furthermore  sees  not  only  a  present  but  a 
historical  connection  between  religion  and  politics  in  the  rela- 
tions between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country.  His  lan- 
guage is  striking  :  "  Every  attempt  upon  American  liberty,"  he 
says,  "  has  always  been  accompanied  with  endeavours  to  settle 
bishops  among  us.  Thus  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.,  when 
Laud  attempted  to  subjugate  the  colonies,  then  in  their  infancy, 
he  was  not  content  with  contriving  to  cramp  their  trade  by 
foolish  proclamations ;  ^  but  to  complete  their  mortification  and 
effect  their  ruin  was  upon  the  point  of  sending  them  a  bishop,^ 
with  a  military  force  to  back  his  authority.  The  same  attempt 
was  revived  in  the  latter  end  of  Queen  Anne's  reign ;  and  had 
not  God  in  his  Providence  interposed,  and  blasted  the  designs 
of  the  enemies  of  Britain,  the  same  year  might  have  been 
remarkable  for  the  downfall  of  protestantism,  the  introduction 
of  the  Pretender,  and  the  revival  of  Popery  in  England,  and  for 
the  establishment  of  bishops  in  America.  The  unsettled  state 
of  the  nation  after  the  accession  of  George  I.  gave  the  enemies 
of  that  prince  and  of  their  country  some  faint  hopes  of  accom- 
plishing their  design;  and,  therefore,  in  the  year  1714,  while 
the  spirit  of  rebellion  was  kindling  into  a  flame,  and  the  friends 
of  Popery  and  the  Pretender  were  forming  their  party  and 
preparing  to  overturn  the  government  and  the  religion  of  their 
country,  the  same  restless  spirits,  who  in  the  last  reign  had  la- 
boured to  get  bishops  established  in  America,  '  renewed  their 
attempt  and  made  one  vigorous  effort  to  accomplish '  what  they 
called  their  'grand  affair.'  But  (thanks  to  the  great  overruler 
of  events)  the  designs  of  both  '  proved  abortive.'  The  rebellion 
was  quashed,  and  the  scheme  of  an  American  Episcopate 
dropt  of  course:  some  persons,  however,  still  continued  to  keep 
sight  of  the  great  object;  and  as  they  are  always  watching  for 
seasonable  opportunities  of  exerting  themselves  to  obtain  it,  we 
find  it  resumed  with  great  warmth  not  long  before  the  rebellion 
in  1745."  ^ 

In  the  course  of  all  the  episcopal  controversies,  this  is  the  first 

^  He  cites  as  authority  Rushworth,  Historical  Colleciions,  ii.  718. 

^He  cites  Heylyn,  Cyprianus  Anglic7is,  369. 

^"Centinel,"  No.  xvi.,  Pentisylvania  Jour7ial,  July  7,  1768. 


206  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

instance  that  I  have  found  of  an  attempt  to  trace  closely  and 
exhaustively  a  connection  of  this  sort.^  So  far  as  the  case  of 
Laud  is  concerned,  the  connection  certainly  holds,  for  not  only 
is  it  attested  by  contemporaries,^  but  it  is,  indeed,  self-evident. 
In  the  other  instances  the  connection  is  more  open  to  question, 
though  two  indications  give  some  color  to  the  "Centinel's" 
assumption.  The  first  is  the  fact  that  John  Talbot,  one  of  the 
most  enthusiastic  advocates  of  an  American  episcopate  during 
the  Queen  Anne  period,  was  a  notorious  Jacobite,  and  was  him- 
self supposed  to  have  received  consecration  from  the  hands  of 
the  non-juring  bishops.^  The  second  is  a  passage  in  Horatio 
Walpole's  letter  to  Sherlock,*  in  which  he  says  that  in  his  opin- 
ion one  of  the  chief  objections  to  the  plan  is  that  the  English 
people  look  upon  any  attempt  to  extend  the  episcopate  as  a 
Tory  scheme.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  cases  in 
the  eighteenth  century  were  not  parallel  with  those  in  Laud's 
time ;  for  Laud's  efforts  were  sanctioned  by  the  government, 
while  those  of  the  later  period  were  put  forth  by  a  faction  that 
was  unsupported  by  the  authority  of  the  state. 

^  A  fitting  continuation  of  this  historical  survey  is  to  be  found  in  one  of  the 
later  numbers  of  the  "American  Whig."  The  writer  says  :  '' Scarce  had  we 
concluded  our  exultation  on  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  before  we  heard  of 
the  execrable  scheme  for  enslaving  the  whole  continent  under  the  dominion 
of  spiritual  courts.  The  Bishop  of  Llandaff  assures  us,  that  the  introduction 
of  Prelates  into  this  country  was  the  main  design  of  erecting  the  society  for 
propagating  the  gospel  in  the  reign  of  King  William.  Ever  since  that  period 
they  have  had  their  eye  upon  us ;  and  now  when  the  conquest  of  Canada  bids 
fair  for  such  an  increase  of  wealth,  as  to  enable  us  to  support  the  hierarchy, 
every  exertion  is  made  on  both  sides  of  the  water  to  accomplish  the  project. 
Bishops  preach  it  up,  legacies  are  given  for  it.  Our  own  clergy  petition  the 
King,  the  Universities,  and  others  in  its  favor.  Private  letters  are  written  to 
solicit  the  men  in  power.  Pamphlets  and  papers  are  published  to  wheedle  and 
deceive  the  Americans  ;  and  the  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  himself  under- 
took to  defend  the  scheme,  and  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Mayhew,  who  gave  the 
first  alarm,  boldly  presumes  without  the  royal  leave  to  intimate  that  if  any 
colony  will  signify  the  request  for  a  Bishop,  a  bishop  will  be  sent "  ("  American 
Whig,"  No.  xlvi.,  Parker's  New  York  Gazette,  January  23,  1769). 

'•^  See  above,  p.  21,  note  2. 

^  Governor  Hunter  called  him  a  "  sower  Jacobite."  For  Hunter,  see  above, 
p.  92. 

*See  above,  p.  118  fF. ;  also  below.  Appendix  A,  No.  xi. 


THE  ''  CENTINEL''  ANSWERED  BY  THE  ''  AN-ATOMIST:'    20/ 

The  "  Centinel's  "  arguments  were  answered  by  the  "  Anato- 
mist "  in  a  series  of  letters  pubhshed  in  th.Q  Philadelphia  Gazette. 
This  writer  considers  the  various  charges  made  by  his  opponent, 
both  general  and  particular,  that  the  Church  of  England  is  an 
enemy  to  the  liberties  of  America,  that  the  Episcopal  clergy  in 
the  colonies  are  endeavoring  in  conjunction  with  Grenville  to 
enslave  their  fellow-countrymen,  that  applications  for  American 
bishops  have  ever  been  preludes  to  attacks  upon  American  lib- 
erty, that  the  attempts  to  introduce  the  Pretender,  to  revive 
popery,  and  to  establish  a  colonial  episcopate  are  parts  of  one 
great  movement,  and  he  denies  them  all.^  He  is  particularly 
strenuous  in  disclaiming  any  connection  between  the  Stamp  Act 
and  the  attempt  to  introduce  bishops.^  Episcopalians  will,  he 
says,  'both  from  interest  and  duty  join  the  other  denominations 

1 "  AnatomisV  No.  i.,  Pejinsylvania  Gazette^  September  8,  1768. 

2  The  following  letter  to  Bishop  Terrick,  written  by  Dr.  Smith  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  clergy  of  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  June  30,  1775,  after  mat- 
ters had  reached  a  crisis,  testifies  to  his  sincerity  on  this  point :  "  All  that  we 
can  do,"  say  the  memorialists,  "  is  to  pray  for  such  a  settlement  and  to  pursue 
those  principles  of  moderation  and  reason  which  your  Lordship  has  always 
recommended  to  us.  We  have  neither  interest  nor  consequence  sufficient  to 
take  any  great  lead  in  the  affairs  of  this  great  country.  The  people  will  feel 
and  judge  for  themselves  in  matters  affecting  their  own  civil  happiness,  and 
were  we  capable  of  any  attempt  which  might  have  the  appearance  of  drawing 
them  to  what  they  think  would  be  a  slavish  resignation  of  their  rights,  it 
would  be  destructive  to  ourselves  as  well  as  to  the  Church  of  which  we  are 
ministers.  But  it  is  but  justice  to  our  superiors,  and  to  your  Lordship  in  par- 
ticular, to  declare  that  such  conduct  has  never  been  required  of  us.  Indeed, 
could  it  possibly  be  required,  we  are  not  backward  to  say  that  our  consciences 
would  not  permit  us  to  injure  the  rights  of  the  country.  We  are  to  leave  our 
families  in  it,  and  cannot  but  consider  its  inhabitants  entitled,  as  well  as  their 
brethren  in  England,  to  the  right  of  granting  their  own  money;  and  that 
every  attempt  to  deprive  them  of  this  right  will  either  be  found  abortive  in  the 
end  or  attended  with  evils  which  would  infinitely  outweigh  all  the  benefits  to 
be  obtained  by  it.  Such  being  our  persuasion,  we  must  again  declare  it  to  be 
our  constant  prayer,  in  which  we  are  sure  that  your  Lordship  joins,  that  the 
hearts  of  good  and  benevolent  men  in  both  countries  may  be  directed  towards 
a  plan  of  reconciliation  worthy  of  being  offered  by  a  great  nation  that  have 
long  been  the  patrons  of  freedom  throughout  the  world,  and  not  unworthy  of 
being  accepted  by  a  people  sprung  from  them  and  by  birth  claiming  a  partici- 
pation in  their  rights"  (quoted  by  Stille,  Historical  Relations  of  Christ 
Churchy  23-24). 


208  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

in  the  defence  of  their  country  and  their  liberties  ;  ^  but  in  noth- 
ing short  of  this  can  they,  after  the  treatment  which  they  have 
received  at  the  hands  of  the  various  independent  sects,  properly 
have  anything  in  common  with  them.^  The  blame  for  this 
unhappy  state  of  affairs  he  lays  at  the  door  of  his  opponents. 
Dr.  Chandler,  he  asserts,  far  from  being  the  aggressor,  is  only 
a  defendant  in  a  dispute  which  was  commenced  by  the  antago- 
nists of  the  church  in  New  England  as  early  as  1734,  from  which 
time  their  attacks  may,  he  declares,  be  traced  down  in  unbroken 
sequence  to  the  date  of  the  Doctor's  pamphlet.^ 

The  "Anatomist"  denies  that  the  settling  of  bishops  in 
America  will  by  common  law  necessarily  involve  the  establish- 
ment of  diocesan  episcopacy,  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  the  whole 
Church  of  England  system.  He  farther  denies  that  certain  of 
the  statutes  already  made  will  tend  to  produce  such  an  establish- 
ment, or  that  some  act  of  Parliament  may  be  passed  or  some 
judge  intimidated  "  to  wrest  both  common  and  statute  law  in 
favor  of  this  establishment."*  Another  writer  who  contributed 
to  the  "  Anatomist  "  series  under  the  name  of  "  Horatio,"  not  con- 
tent with  mere  refutation,  carried  the  war  into  the  enemies'  own 
country,  and  met  their  charges  by  counter  charges.  "  To  obtain 
an  exclusive  dominion,"  he  says,  "  founded  on  true  Oliverian  prin- 
ciples, and  with  it  a  power  of  tyrannizing  over  the  consciences  and 
religious  sentiments  of  all  who  should  presume  to  differ  from 

^  Compare  the  following  statement  from  another  member  of  the  same  com- 
munion :  "  All  the  members  of  the  Church,  to  a  man,  are  far  from  desiring 
.  .  .  they  are  extremely  averse  to  a  Bishop  vested  with  Temporal  Powers, 
and  those  appendages  before  mentioned.  They  are  convinced  that  such  a 
measure  would  injure  the  Church  .  .  .  besides  their  being  as  fast  Friends  to 
every  species  of  Liberty,  religious  or  civil,  as  any  Dissenter  that  exists  " 
("  Whip  for  the  American  Whig,"  No.  xxxi.,  Gaine's  New  York  Gazette, 
November  9,  1768). 

^  His  exact  words  are :  "  In  defence  of  their  country  and  their  liberties, 
whenever  they  shall  be  in  danger,  it  will  undoubtedly  be  the  interest  as  well 
as  the  duty  of  all  denominations  among  us  to  unite ;  but  in  nothing  less  than 
this  have  Presbyterians  any  right  to  expect  the  attachment  of  Churchmen, 
whom  they  have  so  cruelly  and  ungratefully  treated"  ("Anatomist,"  No.  i., 
note,  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  September  8,  1768). 

8  Ibid. 

*"  Anatomist,"  No.  xii.,  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  November  24,  1768. 


THE  ''ANATOMIST'S''    TWO   CONCLUSIONS.  209 

them,  has,  ever  since  the  days  of  Knox,  been  the  constant  aim  of 
those  people.^  The  Church  of  England,''  he  continues,  "  ever 
friendly  to  our  present  glorious  constitution,  and  to  the  religious 
rights  of  every  protestant  denomination,  hath  constantly  op- 
posed them  in  these  pursuits  ;  and  for  this  reason  they  hate 
the  Church  of  England  and  '  have  so  ill  an  opinion  of  her '  — 
They  look  upon  her  as  the  grand  obstacle  in  their  way,  which 
if  they  could  once  remove,  their  wished  for  superiority  over  the 
rest  of  their  fellow-subjects  might,  they  think,  be  easily  effected. 
Is  it  not  then  equally  the  duty,  and  the  interest  too,  of  every 
religious  society  in  the  new  world,  as  well  as  of  the  Church  of 
Englajid,  to  make  head  against  this  aspiring  party,  and  to  join 
unanimously  in  crushing  the  Cockatrice  in  the  o.g'g,  which  other- 
wise may,  and  assuredly  will,  one  day  become  a  fiery  flying 
serpent?''^ 

It  would  have  been  difficult  for  the  Independents  or  the 
Presbyterians  to  frame  a  successful  defence  against  this  in- 
dictment. It  cannot  be  too  often  insisted  upon  that  a  general 
charge  of  intoleration  and  of  an  attempt  to  further  a  particular 
form  of  discipline  and  worship  at  the  expense  of  all  others 
would  have  touched  a  weak  spot  in  the  armor  of  most  of  the 
religious  bodies  of  the  period.  But,  while  it  would  have  been 
reasonable  to  accuse  the  non-Episcopalians  of  encroaching 
upon  the  liberties  of  the  established  church  of  the  mother 
country  because  that  system  did  not  jibe  with  their  own,  it  is 
most  amusing  to  hear  their  action  charged  to  the  fact  that  the 
Church  of  England  was  the  advocate  of  religious  freedom  in 
general. 

The  "  Anatomist "  in  his  twelfth  letter  formulates  two  con- 
clusions to  be  drawn  from  the  recent  controversy,  which  sum 
up  the  matter  very  well :  — 

"  1st,  That  the  advocates  for  an  American  Episcopacy  do 
steadfastly  declare  they  have  no  farther  nor  other  view  in  this 

^  A  similar  charge  had  been  made  some  fifteen  years  before  by  Dr.  John- 
son in  his  "Letter  containing  some  Impartial  Thoughts  on  an  American 
Bishop,"  appended  to  the  London  edition  of  his  Ele//ients  of  Philosophy. 

■-^"■Anatomist,"  No.  iii.,  by  "Horatio,"  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  September 
22,  1768. 

14 


2IO  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

measure  than  that  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  colonies 
may  have  the  same  opportunities  of  keeping  up  a  succession 
of  Ministers  and  Ecclesiastical  order  in  their  body,  and  agree- 
able to  their  principles,  which  all  other  religious  bodies  in 
America  do  enjoy. 

"  2dly,  That  the  opponents  of  this  measure  strive  to  alarm 
all  Ameiica  against  it,  contending,  that  although  the  above  may 
be  the  specious  plea  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  yet  their  true 
design  (notwithstanding  any  assertions  to  the  contrary)  is  to 
introduce  that  yoke  of  spiritual  bondage  and  jurisdiction  over 
the  laity,  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  could  bear."  ^ 

In  this  as  in  the  other  ramifications  of  the  discussion,  the  two 
leaders  were  supported  by  contributions  from  their  respective 
followers  ^  but,  since  their  arguments  bring  out  nothing  of 
sufficient  importance  to  warrant  an  examination,^  we  may  pass 
them  by,  and,  leaving  the  colonies  for  a  time,  see  how  the 
controversy  was  regarded  by  the  English  newspapers. 

In  the  spring  of  1768  the  London  CJironicle  notes  that  "the 
controversy  relating  to  the  fitness  of  sending  bishops  to  Amer- 
ica rages  strongly  in  the  provinces  of  North  America  at  this 
time."  ^  During  the  next  few  years  this  paper  followed  the 
controversy  with  the  closest  attention,  and  printed  in  its  col- 

1 '*  Anatomist,"  No.  xii.,  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  November  24,  1768. 
2 For  example,  " Anti-Centinel,"  "Remonstrant,"  and  "Irenicus." 
3  The  following  extract  from  a  contemporaneous  poetaster  ("  Veridicus''s 
Verses  to   the  Whig  Writer,"  Pennsylvania  Chronicle,  April  11,  1768)  will 
serve  to  illustrate  the  character  of  some  of  the  more  trivial  and  abusive  con- 
tributions :  — 

" .  .  .  if  in  the  present  debate  you  shou'd  find 
We  reply  with  some  warmth,  do,  for  once,  be  so  kind, 
Ye  grave  Centinels,  Whigs,  and  all  other  abettors, 
Of  the  scurrilous  writers  of  scandalous  letters, 
Once  for  all,  be  assur'd  what  we  tell  you  is  true, 
It  is  not  at  Dissenters,  as  such,  but  at  you. 
At  you  only  we  level  our  aim,  and  determine 
No  such  insolent,  meddling,  anonymous  vermin 
Shall  be  suffered  among  us  to  sculk,  with  impunity. 
To  disturb  our  repose,  and  infest  the  community 
By  sowing  the  seeds  of  dissention  and  strife 
Among  those  who  wou'd  fain  lead  a  peaceable  life." 

*  June  21,  1768. 


CONTRIBUTIONS   TO   THE  '^  LONDON  CHRONICLE:'      211 

umns  many  communications,  most  of  which  supported  the  anti- 
episcopal  position.  Like  their  brethren  across  the  water,  the 
contributors  to  the  English  sheets  regarded  the  religious  and 
political  questions  as  closely  allied.  Their  opinion  was  that  the 
religious  grievances  of  the  colonists,  though  not  up  to  that  time 
carried  to  so  great  a  height  as  those  of  a  civil  nature,  were 
nevertheless  as  real,  and,  if  allowed  to  continue  and  to  operate 
to  their  full  extent,  might  perhaps  in  time  become  more  intoler- 
able.^ Commenting  upon  two  schemes  then  in  contemplation, 
which  were  to  be  offered  for  consideration  on  the  meeting  of  an 
"  august  assembly  particularly  formed  on  purpose  to  remove 
those  frequent  jealousies  and  heart-burnings  between  our  colo- 
nies and  the  mother  country,"  a  writer  in  the  London  Chronicle 
remarks  that  these  relate  to  such  jealousies  of  the  colonies  as 
concern  what  they  conceive  to  be  encroachments  on  their  civil 
rights  and  liberties.  "  But  to  what  good  purpose  of  theirs  or 
ours,"  he  asks,  "will  these  jealousies  and  heart-burnings  be 
removed,  if  there  are  among  them  the  seeds  sown  of  a  religious 
war,  ready  to  break  out  with  the  utmost  fury,  which  has  attended 
all  ecclesiastical  contests  when  fomented  to  the  extremity  .''  " 
Since  this  is  likely  to  be  the  event  of  the  controversy  about  an 
American  episcopate,  he  advises  that  the  first  duty  of  the 
"benevolent  healers  of  civil  feuds  in  America"  shall  be  to 
inquire  after  and  properly  censure  the  authors  or  the  instru- 
ments of  the  religious  animosities.  He  accuses  the  state  author- 
ities of  a  criminal  negligence  in  having  allowed  the  affair  to  go 
so  far  without  making  an  effort  to  check  it.^ 

Among  the  articles  published  in  the  English  newspapers  we 
find  some  arguments  that  are  new,  but  more  that  are  old.  One 
of  the  most  interesting  is  that  in  which  a  writer,  who  signs  him- 
self "A  Country  Clergyman,"  elaborates  a  proposition  which 
had  to  some  extent  been  utilized  by  Chauncy.     It  is,  in  sub- 

1  North  Briton,  No.  Ixi.,  quoted  by  "  American  Whig,"  No.  xxxiii.,  Parker's 
New  York  Gazette,  October  24,  1768. 

2  "  No  regard,"  he  complains,  "  has  been  paid  by  our  drowsy  watchmen  of 
state  to  .  .  .  warnings,  and  now  behold  the  beginnings  of  those  sorrows,  in 
the  wildfire  thrown  among  our  colonists  by  fomenting  their  idle,  wretched, 
wicked  controversy  about  an  American  Episcopate  "  (  "  William  Prynne,"  in 
London  Chronicle,  July  i,  1768). 


212  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

stance,  that  bishops  in  the  Church  of  England  are  no  more  than 
presbyters  set  apart  by  act  of  Parliament  to  perform  certain 
offices  in  the  said  church  ;  that  all  the  separate  episcopal  powers 
enjoyed  by  them  are  derived  from  the  authority  of  the  state, 
and  by  no  means  belong  to  them  as  clergymen  of  the  Church 
of  England :  hence  that  there  is  no  need  of  settling  bishops  in  the 
colonies,  since  the  Bishop  of  London's  commissaries  have  with 
the  approbation  of  their  superior  as  much  right  to  confer  orders 
as  his  lordship  himself.^  The  statements  upon  which  this  argu- 
ment is  based  are  obviously  contrary  to  fact ;  for  there  are  now, 
were  then,  and  had  always  been  three  totally  distinct  orders  in 
the  Church  of  England,  the  highest  of  which,  the  episcopal,  alone 
possessed  the  peculiar  function  of  ordination  and  confirmation. 

The  English  writers  were  generally  agreed  that  there  was 
little  likelihood  that  bishops  would  be  sent  to  America.  One 
"  Atlanticus,"  who  sent  many  communications  to  the  London 
Chronicle,  quotes  from  a  public  paper,  the  name  of  which  he 
omits  to  mention,  a  statement  to  the  effect  that  it  is  absolutely 
determined  not  to  establish  an  episcopate  in  the  colonies,  and 
for  two  reasons :  first,  because  it  is  not  necessary ;  secondly, 
because  the  Americans  would  probably  not  submit  to  it.  He 
says  that  he  personally  has  never  heard  the  purpose  asserted 
on  any  sufficient  grounds,  and  that  he  never  could  bring  himself 
to  believe  that  "  our  excellent  Sovereign  and  Legislature  ever 
intended  to  lay  such  a  burden  on  our  American  brethren " ; 
that  he  has  ever  regarded  it  as  the  "  device  of  a  very  few  bigot- 
headed  Churchmen,"  and  is  firmly  persuaded  that  the  majority 
of  Episcopahans  both  in  Old  and  New  England  have  no  real 
inclination  to  the  plan.^  The  occasion  for  "  Atlanticus's  "  article 
was  a  rumor,  widely  circulated  in  some  of  the  public  prints  at  the 
time,  that  the  project  for  sending  bishops  had  been  revived. 

As  has  been  said,  very  few  contributors  to  the  English  news- 
papers wrote  in  favor  of  the  plan.  Those  who  did,  however, 
like  the  pro-episcopal  writers  in  the  colonies,  often  gave  expres- 
sion to  opinions  concerning  the  necessary  connection  between 
the  episcopal  and  the  monarchical  system  which  were  well  cal- 
culated to  arouse  apprehension  in  the  minds  of  Independents  in 

'^London  Chronicle,  September  21,  1768.         "^ Ibid.  September  18,  1768. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  213 

church  and  state.^  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  among  the  Eng- 
lish as  well  as  the  American  opponents  of  the  scheme  the  same 
suspicions,  the  same  insistence  on  knowing  what  authority  the 
episcopal  apologists  had  for  asserting  that  the  bishops  desired 
would  confine  themselves  to  their  purely  spiritual  functions,  and 
what  security  they  could  give  that  in  due  time  claims  to  tem- 
poral power  would  not  be  advanced.^ 

Such  was  the  newspaper  controversy  of  1 768-1 769.  In  re- 
viewing the  arguments  of  the  two  parties  concerned,  we  find 
that  those  who  contended  for  the  introduction  of  bishops  sought 
to  prove  that  no  temporal  authority  was  expected  or  desired  for 
the  proposed  episcopate,  and  hence  that  the  matter  concerned 
the  Episcopal  communion  as  a  purely  religious  body,  and  that 
all  other  persons  or  persuasions  were  unjust,  intolerant,  and 
meddlesome  in  interfering.  Their  opponents,  on  the  other 
hand,  insisted  that  they  had  all  the  reason  in  the  world  for  con- 
cerning themselves  in  the  question ;  that,  in  spite  of  all  assur- 
ances to  the  contrary,  they  had  good  cause  to  fear  that  the 
proposed  establishment  would  involve  in  time  many  innova- 
tions, such  as  spiritual  courts,  the  assumption  of  secular  func- 
tions by  the  bishops,  the  taxation  of  the  inhabitants  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  episcopate,  and  the  introduction  of  tithes  — 
a  measure  which  would  be  a  dangerous  menace  to  the  integrity 
of  their  institutions  poHtical  and  civil.  They  went  even  farther, 
and  included  the  attempt  to  foist  an  episcopate  upon  them 
among  the  oppressive  measures  recently  directed  against 
them  by  the  English  government.  These  arguments,  as  such, 
are  not  new ;  ^  but  the  weight  of  emphasis  laid  upon  them,  as 
compared  with  that  attached  to  questions  of  a  theological  com- 
plexion, is  new,  and  the  popular  interest  is  also  new. 

^  For  example,  "Crito"  (^Ibid.  September  26,  1768)  says,  "I  cannot  con- 
clude without  observing  that  some  late  alarming  transactions,  and  the  republi- 
can spirit  which  prevails  in  some  of  our  Colonies,  give  too  much  reason  to 
apprehend  that  what  has  happened  in  England  [the  Puritan  Revolution]  may 
happen  in  America,  and  that  this  rage  against  Episcopacy  may  be  a  prelude 
to  downfall  of  monarchy." 

'^Cf.  London  Chronicle,  September  19,  1768. 

^  The  one  last  named  of  course  played  no  part  in  the  Mayhew  and  pre- 
Mayhew  controversies. 


214  THE  NEWSPAPER   CONTROVERSY. 

Hence  the  significance  of  the  newspaper  utterances  lies  in 
phases  of  public  opinion  which  they  both  moulded  and  reflected, 
and  in  the  sure  evidence  which  they  furnish,  that  the  episcopal 
question,  in  its  political  aspect,  had  become  important  in  the 
minds  of  the  people.  One  certain  indication  of  the  widespread 
interest  which  the  subject  had  aroused  is  the  fact  that  a  New 
York  publisher  found  it  a  profitable  investment  to  collect  all 
the  articles  which  contributed  to  the  discussion,  and  to  reprint 
them  in  the  form  of  pamphlets.  Certainly,  if  the  question  of 
the  establishment  of  bishops  did  not  contribute  a  lion's  share  in 
causing  that  enmity  to  the  mother  country,  which  was  mani- 
fested mainly  in  a  political  direction,  it  was  involved  in  the 
struggle  and  deserves  to  be  regarded  as  an  important  part  of  it. 

One  more  point  in  regard  to  the  significance  of  the  news- 
paper controversy  deserves  notice.  It  is  generally  admitted 
that,  while  the  majority  of  the  Puritans  advocated  the  principle 
of  forcible  resistance  to  the  oppressive  measures  of  the  home 
government,  many  influential  members  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land preached  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  and  passive  obedi- 
ence.^ Upon  closer  examination  it  will  be  seen  that  most  of 
these  persons  were  in  the  Middle  and  Northern  colonies,  par- 
ticularly in  the  latter,  where  the  Puritan  element  predominated, 
and  that  almost  to  a  man  those  who  sought  the  introduction  of 
bishops  adopted  this  attitude,.  In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  at 
least  a  tenable  hypothesis  that  the  bitterness  of  the  controversy 
brought  out  so  sharply  the  latent  hostility  between  Episcopalian 
and  Puritan,  that  many  churchmen  who  might  otherwise  have 
taken  the  side  of  their  country  were,  by  the  force  of  their  in- 
jured religious  convictions,  driven  over  to  the  loyalist  ranks. 

^  One  should,  of  course,  be  careful  not  to  go  too  far  on  this  point.  Large 
numbers  of  prominent  Episcopalians,  even  among  the  clergy,  particularly  in 
the  Southern  colonies,  were  ardent  patriots.  See  Perry,  American  Episcopal 
Chtirch^  i.  ch.  xxiv.,  "The  Position  of  the  Clergy  at  the  Opening  of  the  War 
for  Independence."  Cf.  also  Dr.  George  E.  Ellis,  in  his  article  "■  The  Senti- 
ment of  Independence,"  in  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History,  vi.  ch.  iii. 
240-244.  The  letter  from  the  clergy  of  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia  (cited 
above,  p.  207,  note  2),  shows  that  the  leaders  of  at  least  one  important  con- 
gregation were  not  without  patriotic  sympathies. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

THE  CONVENTIONS  AND  THE  EPISCOPAL  QUESTION,  1766-1775. 

In  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  followed  the  course  of  the 
struggle  for  and  against  the  establishment  of  an  American 
episcopate  as  it  was  carried  on  in  various  contemporaneous 
publications ;  we  have  examined  the  arguments  advanced  by 
both  parties  in  letters,  public  and  private,  in  pamphlets,  broad- 
sides, and  newspaper  articles,  and  have,  in  this  way,  sought  to 
make  clear  the  attitude  of  the  officers  and  members  of  the 
various  churches,  and  of  the  public  at  large  so  far  as  it  inter- 
ested itself  in  the  question.  Up  to  this  point,  however,  we  have 
been  almost  exclusively  concerned  with  the  opinions,  utterances, 
and  actions  of  individuals  as  such.  It  is  now  time  to  consider 
what  had  been  done,  and  was  to  be  done,  by  the  opposing 
religious  bodies  as  organizations. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  pamphlets  of  Dr.  Chandler 
did  not  proceed  from  his  own  initiative,  but  were  undertaken 
at  the  united  request  of  his  episcopal  brethren  expressed  in  a 
convention  assembled  primarily  to  deliberate  and  act  upon  this 
'  very  matter.^  The  origin  of  this  convention  may  be  traced  to 
an  agreement,  entered  into  by  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  the 
provinces  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Connecticut,  to  hold 
voluntary  annual  conventions ''"  for  the  sake  of  conferring 
together  upon  the  most  proper  methods  of  Promoting  the 
welfare  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  interest  of  religion 
and  virtue,  and  also  to  keep  up  as  a  body  an  exact  correspond- 
ence with  the  Honorable  Society."  ^     This  preliminary  action 

^  The  suggestion  had  originally  come  from  Dr.  Johnson.    See  above,  p.  164. 

2  See  a  letter  from  the  assembled  clergy  to  the  .secretary  of  the  Society, 
dated  May  22,  1766,  quoted  by  Beardsley ;  Life  of  Seabury,  Appendix  A,  and 
by  Perry,  Americaii  Episcopal  Church,  i.  416.  Their  purpose  is  more  specifi- 
cally stated  in  a  resolution  which  has  been  noticed  in  another  connection 
(above,  pp.  164-165).  By  the  "Honorable  Society"  is  meant  the  Society 
for  Propagating  the  Gospel. 


2l6     THE  CONVENTIONS  AND   THE  EPISCOPAL  QUESTION. 

was  taken  at  a  meeting  opened  May  21,  1766,  at  the  house  of 
the  Reverend  Samuel  Auchmuty,  rector  of  Trinity  Church, 
New  York.i  jj^g  f^j-gt  convention  of  the  new  organization  was 
held  at  Elizabethtown,  New  Jersey,  November  i,  1766.^  Here 
a  "  plan  of  union  "  was  formulated,  consisting  of  several  articles, 
which  declared  that  the  "  design "  of  the  association  was  to 
defend  "  the  religious  liberties  of  our  Churches,  to  diffuse  union 
and  harmony,  and  to  keep  up  a  correspondence  throughout  this 
united  body,  and  ivith  our  friends  abroad.'"  At  this  meeting  a 
letter  containing  the  plans  of  the  organization  and  soliciting 
encouragement  and  aid  in  the  advancement  of  them  was  com- 
posed and  sent  to  the  brethren  resident  in  Massachusetts  Bay, 
New  Hampshire,  and  Rhode  Island,  and  to  the  members  of  the 
Dutch  churches.^  The  main  work  of  the  convention,  so  long  as 
it  continued,  consisted  in  drawing  up  numerous  petitions  to  the 
king,  the  archbishops,  the  bishops,  the  Society,  and  the  univer- 
sities of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  in  behalf  of  its  cause,  in  com- 
missioning Chandler  to  write  his  pamphlets,  and  in  taking  a 
lively  part  in  the  newspaper  controversy  of  1768- 1769. 

Meanwhile,  the  synods  of  the  New  York  and  New  Jersey 
Presbyterians  had  joined  forces  with  the  several  Congrega- 
tionalist  associations  of  Connecticut,  and  by  means  of  annual 
conventions  composed  of  delegates  from  these  various  bodies, 
and  of  correspondence  with  a  committee  of  the  dissenting  sects 
in  London,  were  bending  all  their  energies  toward  frustrating 
the  endeavors  of  the  rival  Episcopal  organization,  so  far  as  it 
was  concerned  with   the   introduction   of   American   bishops.* 

1  Fourteen  clergymen  were  present.  See  Perry,  American  Episcopal 
Churchy  i.  415,  citing  Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  of  which 
the  original  folio,  in  Seabury's  handwriting,  is  in  the  possession  of  Professor 
William  J.  Seabury,  D.D.,  of  New  York  City. 

2  It  was  attended  by  nine  clergymen  from  Connecticut  and  twenty-two  from 
New  York  and  Philadelphia. 

3  S.  A.  Clark,  History  of  St.  Johi's  Church,  128-129,  citing  Church  Review, 
iv.  572  (article  entitled  "American  Episcopate  before  the  Revolution"). 

*  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collectiotis,  i.  146.  Cf.  Samuel 
Miller,  Memoirs  of  fohn  Rodger s,  186-187:  "Among  the  measures  which 
were  taken  for  defeating  the  plan  of  an  American  Episcopate,  and  for  keeping 
the  non-episcopal  churches   awake  to  their   interests  and   dangers,  was  the 


THE  CONVENTION-  OF  DELEGATES.  21/ 

'  The  work  of  the  association  was  supplemented  by  the  organized 
efforts  of  a  company  of  prominent  Congregationalists  and  Pres- 
byterians, chief  among  whom  were  the  Reverend  John  Rodgers, 
the  Reverend  Archibald  Laidlie,  the  Reverend  John  Mason, 
William  Livingston,  William  Smith,  and  John  Morin  Scott,  who 
published  a  number  of  articles  and  pamphlets  on  the  "  impolicy 
and  danger  of  an  American  episcopate  "  and  kindred  matters.^ 

The  main  purpose  of  the  convention  of  the  New  York  and 
New  Jersey  Presbyterian  synods  and  the  Connecticut  Congre- 
gationalist  associations,  as  expressed  in  its  public  declarations, 
was,  like  the  purpose  of  the  Episcopalian  convention,  guarded 
and  disguised  under  indefinite  generalities.  Although  the  pro- 
fessed object  in  uniting  was  "the  promotion  of  Christian  friend- 
ship between  the  members  of  their  respective  bodies,  the  spread 
of  the  Gospel,  the  preservation  of  the  religious  liberties  of  their 
churches,  &c.,"  the  first  and  second  conventions  "  were  occupied 
mainly  in  forming  and  completing  their  plan  of  union  and  effort," 
and  the  subsequent  conventions  in  "  prosecuting  measures  for 
preserving  the  liberties  of  their  churches,  threatened  at  the 
time  by  the  attempts  made  by  the  friends  of  Episcopacy  in  the 
colonies  and  in  Great  Britain,  for  the  establishment  of  Diocesan 
Bishops  in  America."  ^  The  association,  while  protesting  that 
it  had  no  objection  to  bishops  who  should  confine  themselves  to 
overseeing  the  affairs  of  the  Episcopal  churches,  expressed  the 
apprehension  that  those  intended  to  be  introduced  would  come 
invested  with  the  powers  ordinarily  possessed  by  Church  of 
England  bishops,  or  else  would  soon  acquire  them ;  and  that  in 
the  exercise  of  these  functions  they  would  necessarily  encroach 

appointment  of  a  general  Convention,  to  compare  opinions  and  concert  plans 
for  the  promotion  of  these  objects." 

1  Miller  {Memoirs  of  John  Rodgers,  192-193)  characterizes  these  men  as 
"vigilant  observers  of  the  course  of  public  affairs  .  .  .  who  did  much  to 
awaken  and  direct  the  public  mind  at  that  interesting  period." 

2  See  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia, and  from  the  Associations  of  Connecticut,  Minutes  (published  at  Hart- 
ford, 1843,  from  the  material  collected  by  a  committee  of  the  "General 
Association"  appointed  in  1842),  3.  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Chitrch,  i. 
422  ff.)  gives  a  good  account  of  the  work  of  this  convention,  based  on  the 
Minutes. 


2l8     THE  CONVEN-TTONS  AND   THE  EPISCOPAL  QUESTION: 

upon  the  colonial  charters,  and  would  prejudice  the  liberties  of 
other  Christian  denominations.  For  the  purpose  of  averting 
such  dangers,  which  were  in  its  opinion  inextricably  interwoven 
with  the  episcopal  system,  the  association  made  arrangements 
for  holding  annual  meetings,  for  entering  into  correspondence 
with  the  English  "Committee  of  Dissenters"  in  London,  for 
collecting  all  charters,  laws,  and  customs  in  force  in  North 
America  which  related  to  religious  liberty,  and  for  ascertaining 
the  number  of  non-Episcopalians  resident  in  the  colonies,  in 
order  to  prove  to  how  great  an  extent  they  outnumbered  the 
members  of  the  Church  of  England. ^ 

The  convention  held  its  first  sitting  at  Elizabethtown,  New 
Jersey,  November  5,  1766.  To  the  printed  minutes  of  the 
regular  proceedings  of  this  meeting  was  appended  a  letter 
which  is  worth  considering  as  a  fair  expression  of  the  opinions 
of  a  majority  of  the  less  violent  among  the  assembled  delegates. 
The  letter,  as  there  published,  bears  no  signature;  it  seems  to 
have  been  inserted  as  a  sample  letter  from  a  typical  American 
dissenter  to  his  correspondent  in  London.  There  is,  however, 
at  least  a  possibility  that  the  author  was  no  less  important  a 
person  than  Roger  Sherman,  and  that  the  communication 
was  addressed  to  the  son  of  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  William 
Samuel  Johnson,  who  was  in  England  as  agent  for  the  colony 
of  Connecticut  during  the  years   1766-1771.^ 

This  letter  professes  much  anxiety  on  account  of  sundry 
petitions  that  have  been  sent  to  England  in  behalf  of  an  Ameri- 
can episcopate,  and  this  not  because  the  sects  for  whom  the 
writer  speaks  are  intolerant,  or  because  they  envy  the  Episcopal 
churches  the  privileges  of  a  bishop  for  ordination,  confirmation, 
and  discipline,  provided  that  he  have  no  power  over  the  other 
denominations  and  no  share  in  the  civil  affairs  of  the  colonists. 
It  is  the  lack  of   any  authoritative  provision    in    the    pending 

"^Minutes,  3. 

^  A  copy  of  this  letter  was  found  among  the  papers  of  Sherman,  and  was  in 
his  handwriting.  His  biographer  conjectures  that  it  was  written  about  1768 
(see  L.  H.  Boutell,  Life  of  Sherman,  64-68).  Since  it  was  annexed  to  the  Min- 
utes for  1766,  and  not  incorporated  in  them,  this  hypothesis  is  not  precluded. 
Johnson  assumed  his  duties  as  agent,  December  24,  1766  (Beardsley,  Epis- 
copal Church  in  Co?mecticut,  i.  263). 


THE  ATTITUDE   OF  THE   CONVENTION:  219 

scheme  which,  he  says,  makes  non-Episcopahans  uneasy.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  insure  a  proper  limitation  of  the  powers 
intrusted  to  the  proposed  episcopate,  he  recommends  that  the 
question  be  settled  under  an  act  of  ParUament  providing  by 
legal  enactment  that  in  the  colonies  the  episcopal  office  shall 
be  divested  of  all  functions  that  are  annexed  to  it  by  the  com- 
mon law  of  England.  Without  such  a  guarantee,  he  says,  the 
good-will  of  the  other  religious  bodies  cannot  be  secured,  since 
to  their  minds  it  is  all  too  probable  that  an  unlimited  episcopate 
cannot  but  tend  to  prejudice  their  best  interests,  temporal  and 
spiritual.  Their  reasons  for  so  thinking  are,  in  his  opinion,  easy 
to  explain.  For  example,  a  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England  is 
a  public  minister  of  state,  versed  in  the  common  law,  authorized 
to  erect  courts  for  taking  cognizance  of  all  matrimonial  and 
testamentary  causes,  and  to  inquire  into  and  punish  "  all 
offences  of  scandal."  Such  being  the  case,  he  may  very 
properly  claim  the  same  functions  in  the  colonies.  Moreover, 
he  continues,  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  a  bishop,  once  settled, 
from  enjoying  the  powers  formerly  exercised  by  Laud  and  his 
ecclesiastical  courts;  for  the  laws  in  force  in  England  at  the 
time  when  America  was  first  settled  are  still  valid  in  the  colonies, 
while  the  later  enactments  limiting  the  exorbitant  powers  of  the 
bishops  at  home  do  not  extend  to  the  colonies,  since  in  no  case 
has  such  an  extension  been  especially  mentioned.^  In  view  of 
these  facts,  what  might  not  be  expected  under  an  episcopal 
regime }  he  asks ;  might  not  the  registrar's  office,  the  care  of 
orphans,  and  similar  duties  be  transferred  from  the  present 
officers  to  such  as  the  bishop  might  appoint  ?  might  not  the 
legality  of  marriage  and  divorce  cases  be  tried  in  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal court  ?  And  this  would  not  be  all ;  for  a  "  covetous,  tyran- 
nical, and  domineering  prelate,"  or  his  chancellor,  would  have 
it  in  his  power  to  harass  the  country,  to  impose  fines,  and 
imprisonments,  and  in  general  to  act  with  "  lawless  severity." 
Still  farther,  not  only  civil  danger,  but  also  religious  oppressions 
might  be  apprehended  from  the  undue  exaggeration  of  the 
power  of  a  single  denomination.     In  short,  under  an  episcopal 

^The  rule  was  that  a  law  passed  in  England  should  have  no  force  in  the 
colonies  unless  an  express  provision  to  that  effect  was  made. 


220     THE  CONVENTIONS  AND   THE  EPISCOPAL  QUESTION. 

establishment,  left  to  itself,  the  worst  abuses  are  all  too  likely 
to  appear,  the  event  of  which  would  be  either  to  force  the 
present  inhabitants  of  North  America  "  to  seek  new  habitations 
among  the  heathen,  where  England  could  not  claim  a  jurisdiction, 
or  excite  riots,  rebellion,  and  wild  disorder."  The  writer,  while 
pointing  out  what  he  considers  would  be,  under  certain  con- 
ditions, the  inevitable  result  of  the  project  in  question,  pre- 
serves, nevertheless,  an  extremely  moderate  tone.  He  concludes 
what  he  has  to  say  with  professions  of  loyalty  to  "  our  most 
gracious  King  and  the  British  Constitution,"  and  assures  his 
correspondent  that  "  we  dread  the  consequences  as  oft  as  we 
think  of  this  danger,"  that  is,  the  danger  which  might  result 
from  the  introduction  of  an  episcopate  under  no  legal  guarantee. 
All  he  asks  is  that,  if  bishops  must  be  sent,  an  event  which  he 
fears  will  in  any  case  be  attended  with  bad  consequences,  "  they 
may  be  under  such  restraints  as  are  consistent  with  our  present 
state  of  peace  and  liberty  "  (in  other  words,  be  confined  by  law 
to  the  care  of  the  people  and  clergy  of  their  own  church),  and 
that  other  denominations  may  be  secured  against  encroachments 
of  their  power  and  against  the  burden  of  their  support.^ 

The  writer  seemingly  makes  a  very  natural  and  moderate 
demand,  and  yet  the  parliamentary  guarantee  for  which  he  asks 
is  the  very  last  thing  which  the  colonists  would  have  accepted. 
From  long-established  principle  they  were  averse  to  any  parlia- 
mentary legislation  in  their  affairs,  whether  it  were  favorable  or 
unfavorable.  A  striking  illustration  of  this  feeling  occurred  in 
the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  :  when,  in  1645,  the 
Long  Parliament  offered  to  guarantee  the  Massachusetts  Body 
of  Liberties,  the  representatives  of  the  province,  fearing  the  prec- 
edent, refused  without  hesitation  the  well-meant  proposal.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  suggestion  for  a  parliamentary  guarantee 
made  in  this  first  convention  was  repudiated  by  a  later  one.^ 

There  is  in  the  Minutes  another  letter  of  the  same  style  as 
that  just  noticed.     It  is  an  answer  by  the  Reverend  Francis 

^  This  letter  is  annexed  to  the  Minutes  for  November  5,  1766,  in  the  Reg- 
istry of  the  New  Haven  East  Association;  it  is  printed  in  Minutes  (1843), 
13-14,  and  in  Boutell's  Life  of  Shermati,  64-65. 

2  See  below,  p.  225. 


CORRESPONDENCE   WITH   THE  LONDON  COMMITTEE.      221 

Alison  to  a  communication  from  the  Reverend  Mr.  Sproat  ask- 
ing why  the  people  of  Philadelphia  ^  are  so  firmly  persuaded 
that  there  is,  at  this  time,  a  determination  to  send  bishops  to 
America.  Alison  cites  the  usual  evidence :  a  written  declara- 
tion of  Chandler  that  Archbishop  Seeker,  in  a  conversation  with 
him,  has  stated  such  an  intention ;  a  statement  of  Dr.  Smith 
that  the  Quakers  of  Pennsylvania  have  expressed  a  willingness 
to  sign  a  certificate  of  their  consent  to  admit  a  moderate  episco- 
pate ;  the  petitions  of  the  clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey 
to  the  authorities  in  England  ;  ^  and,  finally,  the  fact  that  in 
Philadelphia  it  is  the  topic  of  conversation  in  the  coffee-houses 
and  in  public  companies  "  as  an  affair  that  must  take  place,  and 
as  an  affair  that  it  would  be  disloyal  and  intolerant  to  oppose." 
Alison  makes  this  letter  to  Sproat,  who  was  one  of  the  officers 
in  the  convention,  an  occasion  for  discussing  the  dangers  of 
the  expected  establishment.^ 

At  a  meeting  held  October  5,  1768,  also  at  Elizabeth- 
town,  the  convention  drafted  and  sent  its  first  letter  to  the 
"  Dissenting  Committee  "  in  London.  This  letter  informs  the 
committee  that  "the  Pastors  of  the  Consociated  Churches  of 
Connecticut  have  agreed  with  the  Synod  of  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  to  meet  annually  by  Delegates  in  Convention  on 
the  most  catholic  foundation ;  to  give  information  of  the  public 
state  of  our  united  interests  ;  to  join  our  counsels  and  endeav- 
ors together  for  spreading  and  preserving  the  civil  and  reli- 
gious liberties  of  our  Churches ;  to  recommend,  cultivate,  and 
preserve  loyalty  and  allegiance  to  the  King's  Majesty,  and  to 
keep  up  a  correspondence  through  this  united  body  and  with 
our  friends  abroad."  It  says  that  the  aim  of  the  convention  is 
twofold:  first,  to  "strengthen  our  interest  in  suppressing  and 
discouraging  any  measures  that  might  be  fallen  upon  by  the 

1  Dr.  Alison  was  vice-provost  of  the  College  of  Philadelphia.  See  above, 
p.  195. 

2 October  2,  1765.  There  were  seven  in  all:  one  each  to  the  king,  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Archbishop  of  York,  the  Bishop  of  London, 
the  University  of  Oxford,  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel. 

3  It  is  dated  November  15,  1766,  and  is  printed  in  the  Minutes,  14-16,  from 
the  files  in  the  Registry  of  the  New  Haven  East  Association. 


222     THE  CONVENTIONS  AND   THE  EPISCOPAL  QUESTION. 

people  committed  to  our  care  that  would  be  inconsistent  with 
our  character  as  peaceable  and  loyal  subjects,  or  detrimental  to 
the  public  peace  and  tranquillity";  and  secondly,  "that  we 
might  as  faithful  officers  in  the  Church  of  Christ  watch  over 
her  rights  and  privileges,  to  endeavor  more  effectually  to  prevent 
any  attempts  of  any  other  denomination  of  Christians  to  oppose 
us." 

Having  outlined  the  policy  of  the  association,  the  letter  pro- 
ceeds to  explain  the  reason  for  forming  it,  which  is  in  substance 
the  "very  general  alarm  "  which  the  recent  attempts  to  secure 
an  American  episcopate  have  caused.  Upon  this  particular 
issue  the  convention  expresses  itself  substantially  as  its  individ- 
ual members  had  done  in  the  letters  noted  above,  except  that  it 
is  much  more  uncompromising.  Although  it  is  filled  with  "  an 
utter  abhorrence  of  every  species  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny  and 
persecution,"  which  it  regards  as  the  inseparable  accompani- 
ment of  an  episcopal  regime,  it  does  not  wish  to  oppose  bishops 
as  such,  but  only  to  avert  the  consequences  inevitable  upon  the 
settlement  of  the  only  kind  of  an  episcopate  known  to  it.  It 
will  gladly  acquiesce  in  any  plan  by  which  the  safety  and  integ- 
rity of  present  conditions  may  be  assured  ;  but  it  is  only  too 
certain  that  such  assurance  is  not  possible  except  under  an  epis- 
copate so  mutilated  as  to  satisfy  no  Episcopalian,  either  at  home 
or  abroad.  In  a  word,  the  convention  involves  its  possible  agree- 
ment in  such  a  multitude  of  impossible  conditions  as  to  make  of 
it  a  practical  refusal.  "  Nothing,"  it  remarks  a  propos  oi  the  pro- 
posed episcopate  (under  whatever  form  it  might  be  established, 
be  it  noted),  "  seems  to  have  such  a  direct  tendency  to  weaken 
the  dependence  of  the  Colonies  upon  Great  Britain  and  to  sepa- 
rate them  from  her  —  an  event  which  would  be  ruinous  and 
destructive  to  both,  and  which  we,  therefore,  pray  God  long  to 
avert."  Such  a  combination  of  apparent  compliance  and  essen- 
tial irreconcilability  can  be  matched  only  in  the  address  of  the 
earlier  Stuart  parliaments  to  the  crown. 

The  profession  here  made  concerning  the  origin  and  purpose 
of  the  convention  differs  in  two  marked  particulars  from  that 
first  given  to  the  public.  In  the  first  place,  it  lays  greater  em- 
phasis on  the  matter  of  loyalty  to  the  English  crown,  probably 


THE  ACTIVITY  OF  THE   CONVEIVTIOlV.  223 

for  the  purpose  of  propitiating  the  English  dissenting  brethren, 
particularly  Jasper   Mauduit,  who  was  friendly  to  the  crown.^ 

'  In  the  second  place,  it  confesses  with  greater  distinctness  what 
was  really  the  primary  and  sole  purpose  of  the  dissenters  in 
uniting  ;  namely,  their  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  bishops. 
The  convention,  after  explaining  its  policy  and  justifying  it 
by  arguments  already  familiar,  next  states,  as  its  reason  for 
writing  to  the  London  committee,  its  wish  to  solicit  the  cooper- 
ation of  that  body  in  the  effort  to  keep  bishops  out  of  the  colo- 
nies. Although  it  apprehends  no  immediate  danger,  it  has 
reason,  it  says,  to  believe  that  the  prelates  in  England,  who 
have  the  cause  so  much  at  heart,  are  constantly  on  the  alert  for 
a  favorable  chance  of  pushing  it ;  accordingly,  it  behooves  anti- 
Episcopalians  to  be  constantly  on  their  guard.  Since,  however^ 
the  great  distance  from  England  would  prevent  the  colonists 
in  case  of  a  sudden  move  on  the  part  of  their  opponents  from 
doing  anything  until  too  late,  they  are  "  obliged  to  depend  on 
the  vigilance  and  interest  of  .  .  .  friends  in  Great  Britain  who 
are  engaged  in  the  same  common  cause."  Therefore  the 
convention,  as  a  representative  of  the  colonial  anti-episcopal 
interests,  urges  its  English  brethren  to  unite  with  it  in  a  com- 
mon effort,  and  suggests  a  correspondence  by  which  the  colo- 
nists may  be  kept  continually  informed  of  such  things  as  it 
would  be  advantageous  for  them  to  know.^ 

'  Besides  preparing  the  foregoing  letter,  the  convention,  during 
this  session,  appointed  a  standing  committee  to  take  charge  of 
future  correspondence  with  the  friends  in  London,  with  the 
brethren  in  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  New  Hampshire, 

'  and  with  the  presbytery  in  Boston.  It  also  appointed  local 
committees  in  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania. 

The  first  reply  of  the  London  committee  of  which  there  is  a 
record  was  written  August  4,  1770,  not,  however,  in  answer  to 
the  letter  just  noticed,  but  to  a  later  letter  of  the  convention, 
sent  September  14,  1769.     In  this  communication  the  London 

^Mauduit,  who  had  been  agent  for  Massachusetts  from  1762  to  1766,  was 
at  this  time  chairman  of  the  committee  for  managing  the  civil  affairs  of  the 
dissenters. 

^  Minutes y  22-24. 


224     THE  CONVENTIONS  AND   THE  EPISCOPAL  QUESTION. 

committee  explains  its  delay  in  replying  as  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  letter  from  the  colonial  brethren  did  not  come  to  the  hand 
of  its  chairman  until  nine  months  after  it  was  written.  The 
chairman  immediately  summoned  a  meeting  of  the  committee, 
which  took  the  letter  into  consideration,  and,  as  a  result  of  the 
deliberations,  its  secretary  is  now  authorized  to  assure  the  con- 
vention that  the  committee  is  "fully  sensible  of  the  many  civil 
and  religious  inconveniences  that  would  arise  from  the  introduc- 
tion of  Diocesan  Bishops  into  America,"  and  will  do  its  utmost 
to  "  oppose  and  frustrate  any  such  design."  At  the  same  time 
it  has  the  pleasure  of  stating,  from  information  based  upon  the 
strictest  inquiries  from  the  best  authorities,  that  there  is  no  im- 
mediate cause  for  apprehension.  Moreover,  it  hopes  that  the 
government  is  "  so  sensible  of  the  confusion  such  a  step  would 
make  among  our  American  brethren  "  as  to  block  the  design, 
"  however  warmly  some  of  our  Bishops  may  wish  for  it,  and 
express  their  desires  in  their  sermons  on  public  occasions." 
Should  any  new  danger  of  a  revival  of  the  project  arise,  how- 
ever, the  committee  is  ready  to  lend  its  efforts  to  defeat  it.  The 
letter  concludes  with  a  profession  of  willingness  to  continue  the 
correspondence,  and  with  the  assurance  that  the  committee  will 
promptly  impart  to  the  convention  any  information  relative  to 
the  matter  ^  which  it  can  obtain. 

A  second  letter  from  the  London  committee  is  dated  January 
22,  1 77 1.  It  is  interesting  from  the  fact  that  it  contains  a 
consideration  of  a  proposal  made  by  the  convention  for  securing 
an  agent  to  look  after  its  interests  in  London.  The  committee 
opposes  this  scheme  as  impracticable  and  impolitic :  in  the  first 
place,  because  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  person  for  the 
position  endowed  with  the  qualities  specified  by  the  convention ; 
in  the  second  place,  because,  even  if  such  a  one  could  be  found, 
he  would  not  answer  the  end,  since  he  would  not  have  the 
"  weight  with  administration  as  this  committee  would ;  for, 
whatever  he  might  at  any  time  say,  they  would  look  upon  him 
as  an  agent  for  the  colonies  and  under  their  influence,  whereas 
no  such  bias  could  be  imputed  to  this  Committee."  ^  Evidently 
no  means  were  to  be  left  unemployed   to   prevent   the   hated 

'^Minutes,  Appendix,  65.  ^ Ibid.  67-68. 


THE  END   OF  THE  CONVENTION:  225 

establishment.  It  was  at  this  time,  according  to  a  letter  from 
the  convention  to  the  committee,  that  the  colonies  of  Connecti- 
cut and  Massachusetts  gave  instructions  to  their  agents  to 
oppose  any  movement  toward  the  introduction  of  an  American 
episcopate  of  which  they  could  get  wind.^ 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  now  for  the  first  time  the  conven- 
tion declares  emphatically  that  nothing,  not  even  a  parliamen- 
tary, act  limiting  the  episcopal  powers,  could  induce  it  to  accept 
bishops  ;  for  "  no  act  of  Parliament,"  it  says,  "  can  secure  us 
from  the  tyranny  of  their  jurisdiction." 

Without  further  study  it  is  possible  to  form  a  sufficiently  clear 
idea  of  the  policy  and  methods  of  the  "  Convention  of  Delegates 
from  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  from  the 
Associations  of  Connecticut."  It  held  annual  meetings  and 
continued  to  correspond  with  the  "  Dissenting  Committee  "  in 
London  till  1775,  when  its  sittings  were  interrupted  by  the  out- 
break of  the  Revolution.  Since  the  outcome  of  the  war  removed 
all  possibility  of  an  episcopal  establishment  in  America  by  action 
of  the  English  government,^  the  convention  had  no  occasion  to 
meet  again.     Its  work  was  done.^ 

1  September  5.  1771.     See  Minutes,  Appendix,  32-34. 

2  The  part  which  the  convention,  through  its  connection  with  the  London 
committee,  had  in  averting  such  a  possibility  will  be  considered  in  a  later 
chapter. 

3  Cf.  Minutes,  48,  editorial  note. 


J5 


CHAPTER   X. 

THE   OPPOSITION   IN   VIRGINIA. 

The  opposition  of  Virginia  to  the  introduction  of  bishops  is 
of  pecuHar  interest,  for  in  that  colony  the  Church  of  England 
was  established,  and  Episcopalians  were  stronger  than  they  were 
in  any  other  part  of  the  country. 

Before  the  episcopal  question  came  to  the  front,  the  most 
significant  feature  of  Virginian  ecclesiastical  history  after  the 
death  of  Sherlock,  and  the  one  with  which  his  successors  in  the 
see  of  London  had  most  to  do,  was  that  concerning  the  tobacco 
troubles  and  the  events  leading  out  of  them.^  It  is  important 
to  note  that  in  these  disputes  the  Bishop  of  London  had  taken 
the  side  of  the  crown,  —  a  fact  which  contributed  not  a  little  to 
hurt  the  popularity  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  public 
estimation.^  It  needed  but  a  few  such  acts  as  this  on  the  part 
of  the  bishop  to  convince  even  Episcopalians  that  their  safety 
lay  on  the  patriotic  side. 

So  much  for  the  bishop's  personal  activity;  now  let  us  see 

.  how  his  representatives  were  faring  in  the  province.  Though 
commissaries  continued  to  be  appointed  up  to  the  Revolution,^ 
no  holder  of  the  office  received  a  commission  for  the  exercise 

'  of  his  functions  after  the  expiration  of  Gibson's  patent.  Up 
to  the  time  of  William  Robinson,  however,  who  became  com- 
missary in  1 761,  each  new  appointee  had  been  granted  a  royal 

'  warrant  and  a  salary.     Robinson  was  unsuccessful  in  obtaining 

^  More  familiarly  known  as  the  "Parson's  Cause  "  (see  above,  p.  130,  note, 
where  a  brief  bibliography  is  given).  A  letter  fi-om  Commissary  Robinson  to 
Bishop  Terrick,  August  17,  1764,  rehearses  the  history  of  the  question  at 
length.     See  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  489-501. 

2  Cf.  Richard  Bland,  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  Virginia,  passim. 

3  The  commissarial  office  and  the  presidency  of  William  and  Mary  College 
usually  went  to  the  same  person.  The  commissary  as  such  was  a  member  of 
the  council  and  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Bench.  See  Robinson  to  Sherlock, 
November  20,  1760,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  463-470. 


THE   CASE  OF  RAMSAY.  22/ 

even  a  warrant,  and  for  that  reason  did  not  feel  authorized  to 
call  conventions  of  the  clergy,  as  his  predecessors  had  done.^ 
But  although  the  bishops  who  succeeded  Gibson  showed 
very  Httle  interest  in  maintaining  any  discipline  in  Virginia,  cases 
came  up  from  time  to  time  which  indicated  that  their  authority 
was  still  regarded  in  the  colony.  For  example,  in  1767  the  in- 
habitants of  Albemarle  County,  taking  offence  at  the  conduct 
of  their  minister,  the  Reverend  Mr.  Ramsay,  applied  to  a  lawyer 
to  redress  their  grievances.  At  a  loss  to  know  how  to  proceed, 
he  referred  the  matter  to  the  General  Court.  The  court,  con- 
sidering that  it  had  jurisdiction  over  all  causes,  criminal,  civil, 
and  ecclesiastical,  and  hence  that  it  could  legally  take  cogni- 
zance of  a  case  of  this  nature,  ordered  the  issue  of  citations,  that 
the  affair  might  be  inquired  into  and  justice  be  done  between 
the  parties.^  As  soon  as  the  matter  came  to  the  attention  of 
Governor  Fauquier,  he  at  once  sent  a  report  of  it  to  Bishop 
Terrick,  with  the  assurance  that  he  would  keep  him  informed 
of  every  step  in  the  process.^  There  is  an  entry  on  the  back 
of  the  original  letter  among  the  Fulham  manuscripts  stating 
that  his  lordship  rephed  to  Fauquier,  September  7,  1767.  It 
would  be  interesting  to  know  what  position  he  took  on  the 
question,  but  unfortunately  his  letter  has  disappeared.  More- 
over, even  the  issue  of  this  case  is  not  certainly  known,  although 
there  is  some  ground  for  believing  that  proceedings  were  stopped 

^  See  Robinson  to  Terrick,  May  23,  1765,  Ibid.  503-505. 

2 Richard  Bland,  writing  August  i,  1 771,  to  Thomas  Adams,  said  :  "The 
King  has  assented  to  the  Act  of  Assembly  which  declares  that  the  general 
court  shall  take  cognizance  of  and  '  have  Power  &  jurisdiction  to  hear  &  Deter- 
mine all  causes,  matters,  or  things  whatsoever  relating  to  or  concerning  any 
Person  or  Persons  ecclesiastical  or  civil ;  or  to  any  Persons  or  Things  of  what 
nature  soever,  the  same  shall  be'"  {William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly, 
January,  1897,  v.  150  ff.).  But  Bland  does  not  mention  the  date  of  the  act, 
and  I  can  find  no  record  of  it.  It  is  doubtful  if  it  was  in  force  at  this  time. 
Certainly  the  custom  had  hitherto  been  for  the  governor  and  council  to  proceed 
against  irregular  clergymen  (see  the  Brunskill  case,  above,  pp.  136-137). 
According  to  the  Met/iodus  Procedendi  issued  by  Gibson  in  1728,  the  commis- 
sary was  empowered  to  take  cognizance  in  such  cases ;  but  any  authority 
which  that  instrument  carried  (and  it  seems  to  have  been  little  observed) 
ceased  at  the  expiration  of  Gibson's  commission. 

^Fauquier  to  Terrick,  April  27,  1767,  Ftdhain  MSS. 


228  OPPOSIT/OiV  /iV  VIRGINIA. 

by  the  death  of  the  accused  minister.  There  is  a  possible 
allusion  to  this  outcome  in  an  interesting  discussion,  dating  from 
about  this  time,  concerning  the  theoretical  extent  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  regard  to  clerical  offences. 
The  discussion  is  contained  in  two  letters,  dated  respectively 
November  ii,  1770,  and  April  17,  1 771,  from  President  Nelson  ^ 
of  Virginia  to  Lord  Hillsborough,  at  that  time  secretary  of  state 
for  the  colonies.^  The  occasion  of  Nelson's  first  communication 
was  the  perusal  of  the  sixty-seventh  article  of  his  instructions, 
which  directed  him  to  use  "  the  proper  and  usual  means  for  the 
removal"  of  any  minister,  already  preferred  to  a  benefice,  who 
should  appear  to  him  "  to  give  scandal  either  by  his  doctrines 
or  his  manners."  Nelson  states  that  there  are  few  irregular 
clergymen  in  the  colony,  but  expresses  his  doubts  whether,  if 
any  should  be  found,  there  are  any  "  proper  &  regular  means 
in  this  country  to  remove  such  for  want  ...  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  having  any  power  in  this  respect  from  his  Majesty."  ^ 
He  is  of  opinion,  however,  that,  were  his  lordship  possessed 
of  any  such  power,  he  might  delegate  it  to  his  commissaries,  to 
enable  them  to  hold  jurisdiction  and  "to  enquire  into  the 
Orthodoxy,  Morals,  or  neglect  of  Duty  of  the  Clergy  or  to 
suspend  or  deprive  on  proper  occasions."  *  After  pointing  out 
that  the  king,  as  constitutional  head  of  the  church,  had  formerly 
by  a  special  commission  to  the  Bishop  of  London  given  such 
power  to  the  commissaries,  who  with  the  assistance  of  two 
assessors  held  courts.  Nelson  continues,  "  but  I  cannot  find 
that  any  Bishop  of  London  hath  had  such  a  Commission  since 
the  time  of  Dr.  Edmund  Gibson,  of  that  See,  and  consequently 

^  William  Nelson  (1771-1772)  was  president  of  the  Council  of  Virginia,  and 
during  the  interval  between  Lord  Botetourt  and  Lord  Dunmore,  1770-1771,  he 
acted  as  governor.  He  also  presided  over  the  General  or  Supreme  Court  of  law 
and  equity  of  the  province,  being  regarded  as  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  of  his 
time. 

^  These  letters  are  printed  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.   (Virginia) 

532-534- 

^  This  power  Gibson  had,  of  course,  given  to  his  commissaries  while  his 
commission  was  in  force. 

^  Gibson  had  done  this  by  the  issue  of  commissions  and  sets  of  instructions. 
For  examples  of  these  see  below,  Appendix  A,  No.  vi. 


CLERICAL  DISCIPLINE  IN  VIRGINIA.  229 

no  such  courts  have  been  held  here  since  that  era."  ^  In  view 
of  these  facts,  since  a  court  is  needed  for  taking  cognizance  of 
spiritual  causes,  and  since  there  exists  in  Virginia  no  court 
for  the  purpose,  Nelson  wishes  to  submit  the  case  to  the 
attorney  and  solicitor  generals,  to  know  whether  the  General 
Court,  which  claims  the  right,  and  has  already  attempted  to 
exercise  it  in  two  cases,  both  abated  by  death,^  can  properly 
exercise  that  function.^ 

Meanwhile,  before  sending  his  second  letter.  Nelson  read  the 
Gibson  commission  a  second  time  more  carefully,  but  found 
no  reason  for  changing  his  opinion ;  for,  as  he  reminds  Lord 
Hillsborough,  with  the  death  of  Gibson  the  powers  granted  to 
him  had  expired,  and  the  commissaries  since  that  time  had 
received  no  other  appointment  than  letters  from  the  succeeding 
bishops  of  London,  which  they  regarded  as  insufficient  to 
authorize  their  taking  any  official  action  in  ecclesiastical  con- 
cerns. Nelson  complains  that,  for  want  of  such  commissarial 
authority  to  set  up  an  ecclesiastical  court,  the  prestige  of  the 
crown  is  suffering ;  *  and  requests  again  that,  if  an  adequate 
commission  cannot  be  sent  to  the  commissary,  the  attorney 
and  solicitor  generals  be  moved  to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  General  Court  in  spiritual  causes,  particularly 
since  the  case  of  an  immoral  clergyman  is  pending,  which,  in 
the  ensuing  October,  is  going  to  be  used  by  both  parties  as  a 
test  case  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
General  Court.^  But  at  this  time  the  political  issues  directly 
preceding  the  Revolution  were  beginning  to  absorb  the  attention 

^  Such  courts  had  almost  never  been  held  in  Virginia.  Commissary  Gar- 
den held  several  in  South  Carolina,  his  most  celebrated  case  being  the  trial  of 
George  Whitefield. 

'^Without  doubt  one  of  these  was  Ramsay's  case.     See  above,  pp.  227-228. 

^  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  532-533. 

*  The  Independents  and  Congregationalists,  particularly  in  New  England, 
liked  to  get  hold  of  such  statements  as  this. 

5  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  533-534.  It  is  strange  that 
Nelson  makes  no  mention  of  the  act  to  which,  according  to  Bland's  letter  of 
August,  1 77 1,  the  king  had  given  his  assent.  Possibly  it  was  ratified  between 
April  and  August,  in  consequence,  it  may  be,  of  Nelson's  inquiry ;  but  the 
fact  that  it  is  not  recorded  among  the  Virginia  statutes  inclines  one  to  doubt 
whether  it  was  passed  in  the  form  of  a  regular  legislative  act. 


230  OPPOSITION  IN  VIRGINIA. 

of  the  colonists,  and  there  appears  to  be  no  record  of  any  test 
trial,  or  of  any  opinion  of  the  attorney  and  solicitor  generals. 
If  any  opinion  was  given,  it  must  have  favored  the  General 
Court,  particularly  if  the  crown  had  assented  to  an  act  of 
assembly  by  which  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was  either  granted 
or  confirmed  to  this  court.^ 

Though  in  general  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  Maryland  and  Virginia  had  taken  very  little  share 
in  the  agitation  for  an  American  episcopate,^  at  least  one  earnest 
attempt  to  secure  the  desired  bishops  was  made  in  each  of  these 
colonies.     Only  the  Virginia  case  will  be  noticed  here.^    All  the 

1  See  above,  p.  227,  note  2,  and  p.  229,  note  5. 

^  This  fact  was  noticed  at  the  time.  The  "  American  Whig,"  in  his  thir- 
teenth article,  says :  "  From  the  best  information  I  have  been  able  to  obtain, 
the  clergy  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 
and  the  West  India  Islands  had  no  concern  in  the  late  petitions  transmitted 
on  this  subject ;  they  seem  to  have  been  hatched  by  a  few  warm  missionaries 
in  the  provinces  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania ;  and  propagated  to 
the  Eastern  colonies  by  the  help  of  the  frequent  unconstitutional  assemblies, 
latterly  convoked  under  the  name  of  the  convention  "  (Parker's  New  York 
Gazette,  June  6,  1768).  President  Nelson,  in  a  letter  to  Edward  Hunt,  May 
II,  1771,  says:  "The  Virginians,  tho'  almost  all  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
have  as  yet  taken  no  part  in  the  Dispute,  the  reason  I  believe  is,  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  more  indifference  to  us  than  to  the  other  Provinces  which  are  full  of 
every  kind  of  Dissenters  inimical  to  Episcopacy.  We  do  not  want  Bishops  ; 
yet  from  our  Principles  I  hardly  think  we  should  oppose  such  an  establish- 
ment; nor  will  the  laity  apply  for  them"  {William  and  Mary  College  Quar- 
terly, ]?Ln\i?LYy,  1897,  v.  149-150;  from  Nelson's  letter-book  in  the  Episcopal 
seminary  at  Alexandria,  Virginia).  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connec- 
tion what  Hawks  thought  on  the  subject.  '^  A  faithful  bishop,''''  he  says, 
"  would  have  been  a  blessing  to  the  colony,  and  this  was  plainly  perceived  by 
the  worthy  part  of  the  clergy  in  Virginia  [in  support  of  this  statement  he  cites 
Jones,  Present  State  of  Virginia,  99]  ;  nor  did  they  hesitate  to  ask  that  one 
might  be  sent,  with  powers  so  limited  in  certain  particulars  as  to  allay  the  sus- 
picious fears  of  the  people,  who  dreaded  nothing  more  than  ecclesiastical 
tyranny"  {Ecclesiastical  Contributiojis,  i.  (Virginia)  95).  Hawks's  assertion 
conveys  an  utterly  false  impression.  Apparently  there  never  was  an  appre- 
ciable number  of  either  clergy  or  laity  in  Virginia  who  desired  anything  of 
the  sort ;  indeed,  most  indications  show  that  they  were  not  only  indifferent, 
but  hostile  to  the  plan.  In  preceding  pages  of  this  work  an  attempt  has 
been  made  to  account  for  their  attitude. 

^  For  general  accounts  of  this  affair,  see  Perry,  Atnerican  Episcopal  Church, 
i.  419  ff. ;  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  i.  (Virginia)   1 26-1 31,  citing 


A    CONVENTION  OF   VIRGINIA    CLERGY  SUMMONED.        23 1 

evidence  goes  to  show  that  the  original  moving  cause  of  the 
appHcation  from  this  province  came  from  the  "  United  Con- 
vention of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,"  which  deputed  Dr. 
Myles  Cooper,  president  of  King's  (now  Columbia)  College, 
and  the  Reverend  Robert  McKean,  missionary  at  Amboy,  New 
Jersey,  "  to  visit  the  southern  part  of  the  continent,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  the  cooperation  of  their  brethren  in  that  region 
in  procuring  an  American  episcopate."  ^  ^ 

Probably,  owing  to  the  efforts  of  this  committee.  Commissary 
Horrocks^  issued  in  April,  1771,  by  means  of  an  advertisement 
in  the  Virginia  papers,  a  summons  for  the  clergy  of  the  prov- 
ince to  meet  on  the  4th  of  May  at  the  College  of  William  and 
Mary.  Since  only  a  small  number  answered  the  call,  it  was 
voted,  in  the  informal  meeting  which  was  held,  that  the  com- 
missary insert  a  second  advertisement,  stating  the  business  to 
be  taken  up  in  the  proposed  convention.  In  consequence  of 
this  second  summons,  twelve  clergymen  presented  themselves, 
and  the  convention  was  opened  on  the  4th  of  June.  The 
question  as  to  whether  the  number  present  was  sufficient  to 

Burk,  Virginia,  iii.  364-365  ;  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collec- 
tions, i.  155-156. 

1  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contribiitiofis,  i.  (Virginia)  126,  citing  \\\t  Journals 
of  the  United  Conventio7i  of  \'j(i'j,  pp.  32-35,  from  the  Seabury  MSS. 

-  James  Horrocks,  sixth  president  of  William  and  Mary  College,  succeeded 
William  Robinson  as  commissary  in  1771.  On  account  of  failing  health  he 
was  forced  to  resign  his  duties,  and  to  go  to  England  early  in  the  summer  of 
the  same  year.  He  left,  to  represent  him  in  his  various  duties,  the  Reverend 
John  Camm  as  president  of  the  college,  the  Reverend  Mr.  Willie  as  commis- 
sary, and  the  Reverend  Samuel  Henley  as  minister  of  Bruton  parish,  of  which 
Horrocks  was  rector.  Horrocks  died  in  England,  March  22,  1772.  He  was 
.succeeded  as  president  and  commissary  by  Camm.  Burk,  Hawks,  and 
Perry  name  Camm  as  the  one  who  called  the  convention  and  presided  at  it ; 
but  this  statement  is  erroneous.  They  may  have  taken  the  notion  from  the 
fact  that  Cariim  was"  the"Tea"der,  on  the  Episcopal  side,  of  the  disputes  which 
arose  from  the  action  taken  by  the  meeting.  Gwatkin,  a  member  of  the  con- 
vention, in  his  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  (p.  4),  says 
simply  that  it  was  called  by  the  "  commissary."  The  two  letters  of  Nelson 
and  Bland,  which  have  been  already  mentioned,  and  which  Burk,  Hawks,  and 
Perry  probably  never  had  an  opportunity  to  peruse,  seem  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  See  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly 
(January,  1897),  v.  149-156/a.yj/w. 


232  OPPOSITION  IN  VIRGINIA. 

constitute  a  convention  was  first  debated,  and  was  decided  in 
the  affirmative.  Having  settled  this  point,  the  convention 
passed  to  a  consideration  of  the  business  for  which  it  was 
assembled ;  namely,  the  advisability  of  addressing  the  king  on 
the   subject   of   an  American  episcopate,  and,  after  some  dis- 

•  cussion,  voted  in  the  negative,  though  it  decided  unanimously 
to  refer  the  matter  to  the  Bishop  of  London  for  his  opinion  and 
advice.     Later  the  question  of  addressing  the  king  was  recon- 

•  sidered,  in  spite  of  a  strong  opposition,  the  movers  of  which 
argued,  first,  that  such  a  proceeding  would  indicate  ingratitude 
to  their  diocesan,  the  Bishop  of  London ;  secondly,  that  it  would 
be  impolitic,  in  view  of  the  state  of  the  country,  particularly 
after  the  late  Carolina  disturbances ;  ^  and,  finally,  that  if  such 
an  address  were  sent,  it  should  be  first  referred  to  the  assembly 
for  its  approval.  But  these  arguments  were  disregarded  by  the 
majority ;  Camm,  indeed,  refused  even  to  consider  the  request 
to  refer  the  proposition  to  the  assembly,  because  he  was  "  sure 
it  would  not  succeed."^ 

The  exact  form  of  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  convention 
♦     was  as  follows :  "  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  draw  up 
an  Address  to  the  King  for  an  American  Episcopate,  and  that 
the  Committee  shall  apply  for  the  Hand  of  the  Majority  of  the 
Clergy  of  this  Colony,  in  which,  if  they  succeed,  the  Bishop  of 
London  is  to  be  addressed  for  his  Concurrence,  and  requested 
to  present  their  Address  to  his   Majesty,  but  without  a  Con- 
currence of  a  Majority  of  the  Clergy  the  Address  not  to  be 
transmitted,  and  that  the  Reverend  Messieurs  Camm,  Willie, 
Skyring,  White,  and  Fontaine,  or  any  three  of  them,  are  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  prepare  the  said  Address."  ^ 
f-     Two  leading  clergymen  of  the  colony  —  the  Reverend  Thomas 
y  I  Gwatkin,  professor  of  mathematics,  and  the  Reverend  Samuel 

'       ^  An  allusion  to  the  Mecklenburg  convention  and  resolves. 

^  See  Gwatkin,  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  4-5. 
From  now  on  Camm  figures  as  the  leader  of  the  pro-episcopal  party.  He  had 
led  the  clergy  of  Virginia  in  the  "  Parson's  Cause,"  and  had  gone  to  England 
to  advocate  their  claims.  He  represents  the  Tory  element  in  the  Revolution. 
^  Of  the  twelve  members  present,  eight,  including  Horrocks,  voted  for  the 
resolution,  and  four  against  it.  See  Bland  to  Adams,  August  i,  1771,  William 
and  Mary  College  Quarterly .,  v.  153. 


THE  PROTEST  OF  GWATKIN  AND   HENLEY.  233 

Henley,  professor  of  moral  philosophy,  in  William  and  Mary 
College  —  registered  a  formal  protest  against  the  vote  of  the 
meeting.  They  assigned  seven  reasons  for  their  opposition, 
which  are  in  substance  as  follows  :  — 

First,  because  the  clergy  present  at  the  convention  insuffi- 
ciently represent  the  clergy  of  the  province,  who  number  over 
a  hundred. 

J  Secondly,  because  the  resolution  contradicts  one  previously 
made  by  the  same  convention,  to  the  effect  that  the  king  shall 
not  be  addressed  on  the  subject  of  an  American  episcopate. 

Thirdly,  because  the  jurisdiction  of  the  American  episcopate 
desired  would  probably  include  the  other  colonies  as  well  as 
Virginia,  and  therefore  it  would  be  improper  for  the  clergy  of 
Virginia  to  "  petition  for  a  Measure  which,  for  ought  that  ap- 
pears to  the  contrary,  will  materially  affect  the  Natural  Rights 
and  fundamental  Laws  of  the  said  Colonies  without  their  Con- 
sent and  Approbation." 

Fourthly,  "  because  the  establishment  of  an  American  Epis- 
copate at  this  time  would  tend  greatly  to  weaken  the  connexion 
between  the  Mother  Country  and  her  Colonies,  to  continue  their 
present  unhappy  Disputes,  to  infuse  Jealousies  and  Fears  into 
the  Minds  of  the  Protestant  Dissenters,  and  to  give  ill-disposed 
Persons  Occasion  to  raise  such  Disturbances  as  may  endanger 
the  very  Existence  of  the  British  Empire  in  America." 

Fifthly,  because  it  is  "  extremely  indecent  ...  to  make  such 
an  Apphcation  without  the  concurrence  of  the  President,  Coun- 
cil, and  Representatives  of  this  Province." 

\  Sixthly,  because,  since  the  colony  has  always  hitherto  been 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  of  London,  and  the  rule 
of  the  present  diocesan  is  perfectly  satisfactory,  they  think  "a 
Petition  to  the  Crown  to  strip  his  Lordship  of  any  Part  of  his 
Jurisdiction  but  an  ill  Return  for  his  past  Labors,  and  contrary 
to  our  Oath  of  Canonical  Obedience."  Moreover,  since  the 
convention  has  already  determined  to  consult  his  lordship  in 
the  matter,  they  think  it  should  wait  to  hear  from  him  before 
proceeding  farther  "in  an  Affair  of  such  vast  Importance." 

Seventhly,  because  they  regard  the  method  to  be  employed 
for  ascertaining  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  clergy  of  the 


234  OPPOSITION  IN  VIRGINIA. 

province   as  not  only  undignified   but  even  "  contrary   to   the 
universal  Practice  of  the  Christian  Church."  ^ 

Of  these  seven  reasons  on  which  Gwatkin  and  Henley  based 
their  objections  to  the  action  of  the  convention,  that  concern- 
ing the  unaptness  of  the  occasion  chosen  for  making  the  appli- 
cation is  the  only  one  of  any  cogency.^  Two  of  them,  the  first 
and  the  sixth,  display  a  total  misunderstanding  of  the  resolution 
quoted  in  their  own  preamble.^  Although  it  is  true  that  the 
convention  was  so  small  as  to  be  hardly  a  representative  body, 
it  will  be  noticed  that  it  planned  to  take  no  action  until  assured 
of  the  support  of  a  majority  of  the  brethren  present.  In  peti- 
tioning the  crown,  the  intention  was  not  to  circumvent  their 
diocesan,  but  rather  to  cooperate  with  him  in  a  cause  which  he 
had  as  much  at  heart  as  they.  The  address  was  first  to  be 
referred  to  him  for  his  concurrence,  and  was  to  be  by  him 
presented  to  the  king.  It  was  certainly  no  evidence  of 
ingratitude  to  the  Bishop  of  London  to  seek  to  relieve  his  see 
of  a  burden  which  its  successive  holders  had  been  striving  to 
throw  off  ever  since  the  days  of  Sherlock.  Richard  Terrick, 
who  held  the  office  at  this  time,  was  just  as  anxious  as  any 
of  his  predecessors  to  transfer  to  a  native  episcopate  the 
functions  which  custom  had  fastened  on  him.  He  had  many 
times  said  so  in  no  uncertain  terms.* 

^Gwatkin,  Letter,  6-8.  The  protest  was  also  printed  in  the  London 
Chronicle,  August  30,  1771,  and  has  been  reprinted  by  Hawks,  Perry,  and 
others  in  their  accounts  of  the  episode. 

2  This  is  the  fourth.  The  third,  and  perhaps  the  fifth,  were,  however,  not 
without  weight. 

^  Perry,  Hawks,  and  the  Collections  do  not  print  the  preamble ;  Burk  does. 

*  Writing  to  the  clergy  of  Connecticut,  February  18,  1765,  a  few  months 
after  his  accession,  he  said :  "  I  am  very  sensible  (and  in  this  I  speak  the  sen- 
timents of  my  brethren)  that  nothing  can  more  effectually  contribute  to  the 
happy  and  prosperous  state  of  the  colonies,  in  a  civil  as  well  as  a  religious 
view,  than  the  appointment  of  resident  bishops.  A  bishop  of  London,  how- 
ever inclined  to  do  his  duty,  is  too  sensible  of  the  importance  of  the  charge 
which  long  usage  and  custom  has  committed  to  him,  and  too  conscious  of  the 
little  service  he  can  do  to  a  clergy  at  this  distance  from  him,  not  to  feel  very 
anxiously  the  necessity  of  a  more  immediate  inspection  and  government " 
(Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  138,  note  i).  In  the 
very  year  in  which  the  protest  appeared  (1771),  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Johnson, 


THE  BURGESSES'  RESOLUTION  OF  THANKS.         235 

The  last  objection  advanced  by  Gwatkin  and  Henley  is  based 
on  a  technicality  of  procedure,  and  therefore  need  not  concern  us. 

Soon  afterward  the  matter  was  brought  before  the  House  of 
Burgesses.  As  a  token  of  their  approval  and  appreciation  of 
the  action  of  the  protestants,  the  burgesses,  on  July  12,  passed, 
"  iicmine  contradiceiite,''  the  following  resolution:  "That  the 
Thanks  of  this  House  be  given  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  Henley, 
the  Reverend  Mr.  Gzvatkin,  the  Reverend  Mr.  Hewitt,  and  the 
Reverend  Mr.  Bland  for  the  wise  and  well-timed  Opposition 
they  have  made  to  the  pernicious  Project  of  a  few  mistaken 
Clergymen,  for  introducing  an  American  Bishop  :  A  Measure 
by  which  much  Disturbance,  great  Anxiety,  and  Apprehen- 
sion would  certainly  take  place  among  his  Majesty's  faithful 
American  Subjects:  And  that  Mr.  Richard  Henry  Lee  and  Mr. 
Bland  do  acquaint  them  therewith."  ^  It  is  interesting  to  see 
the  representative  assembly  of  Episcopalian  Virginia  taking  the 
same  stand  against  the  introduction  of  bishops  as  that  of  Puritan 
Massachusetts.^    This  decided  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part 

July  22  :  "I  feel  as  sensibly  as  you  can  wish  me  to  do  the  distress  of  the 
Americans  in  being  obliged,  at  so  much  hazard  and  expense,  to  come  to  this 
country  for  orders.  But  I  own  I  see  no  prospect  of  a  speedy  remedy  to  it. 
They  who  are  enemies  to  the  measure  of  an  Episcopacy,  whether  on  your 
part  of  the  globe  or  ours,  have  hitherto  found  means  to  prevent  its  taking 
place.  Though  no  measure  can  be  better  suited  to  every  principle  of  true 
policy,  none  can  be  more  consistent  with  every  idea  I  have  formed  of  truly 
religious  liberty.  .  .  .  But  whatever  are  our  sentiments  or  wishes,  we  must 
leave  it  to  the  discretion  and  wisdom  of  Government  to  choose  the  time  for 
adopting  that  measure.  Whether  we  shall  live  to  see  that  day,  is  in  the  hands 
of  God  alone.  We  wish  only  that  we  could  look  forward  with  pleasure  and 
enjoy  the  thought"  (Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  345-346;  Chandler,  Life  of 
Johnson,  200-201  ;  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Church  of  England,  395,  citing 
Chandler). 

^  Address  front  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  to  the  Episcopalians 
in  Virginia,  7,  note,  citing  Rind's  Virginia  Gazette,  July  12,  1771.  See  also 
Perry,  American  Episcopal  Chnrch,  i.  420. 

-On  January  12,  1768,  the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives  had 
commissioned  Samuel  Adams  to  write  a  letter  on  the  subject  to  Dennis  de 
Berdt,  its  agent  in  London.  It  ran  as  follows :  "  The  establishment  of  a 
protestant  episcopate  in  America  is  .  .  .  zealously  contended  for :  And  it  is 
very  alarming  to  a  people  whose  fathers,  from  the  hardships  they  suffered 
under  such  an  establishment,  were  obliged  to  fly  their  native  country  into  a 


236  OPPOSITION  IN  VIRGINIA. 

of  the  House  of  Burgesses  put  a  stop  to  any  further  proceed- 
ings on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  address  to  the  king. 

The  matter,  however,  was  not  allowed  to  drop.  The  hostile 
attitude  of  some,  and  the  indifferent  attitude  of  a  majority, 
of  the  Virginia  Episcopalians  caused  the  "  Convention  of  the 
Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey "  to  address  them  a 
letter,!  which  requires  a  brief  consideration. 

The  authors  of  the  Address  profess  the  same  motives  which 
actuated  Chandler  in  writing  his  Appeal,  that  is,  a  wish  to  ex- 
pound the  true  plan  on  which  it  is  desired  to  establish  bishops, 
thinking  that  if  their  brethren  in  Virginia  understand  its  true 
character  they  will  lend  it  their  support.^  Among  other  things 
they  point  out  a  fact  which,  as  has  been  shown,  was  disre- 
garded, either  intentionally  or  unintentionally,  by  Gwatkin  and 
Henley  in  the  sixth  article  of  their  protest ;  namely,  that  since 
the  time  of  Gibson  the  Bishops  of  London  have  properly  pos- 
sessed no  jurisdiction  over  the  colonies,  although  "  according 
to  former  Usage,"  they  add,  "our  Candidates  apply  to  the 
Bishop  of  London  for  Ordination,  and  he  is  generally  allowed 
to  have  a  more  immediate  Connection  with  the  Colonies  than 


wilderness,  in  order  peaceably  to  enjoy  their  privileges,  civil  and  religious: 
Their  being  threatened  with  the  loss  of  both  at  once,  must  throw  them  into 
a  very  disagreeable  situation.  We  hope  in  God  such  an  establishment  will 
never  take  place  in  America,  and  we  desire  you  would  strenuously  oppose  it. 
The  revenue  raised  in  America,  for  ought  we  can  tell,  may  be  as  constitution- 
ally applied  towards  the  support  of  prelacy  as  of  soldiers  and  pensioners  :  If 
the  property  of  the  subject  is  taken  from  him  without  his  consent,  it  is  im- 
material, whether  it  be  done  by  one  man  or  five  hundred ;  or  whether  it  be 
applied  for  the  support  of  ecclesiastical  or  military  power,  or  both.  It  may 
be  well  worth  the  consideration  of  the  best  politician  in  Great  Britain  or 
America,  what  the  natural  tendency  is  of  a  vigorous  pursuit  of  these  measures  " 
(^Collection  of  Tracts  from  the  Late  Newspapers,  i.  67  ;  W.  V.  Wells,  Samuel 
Adams,  \.  157;  Mellen  Chamberlain,  y^//«  Adams,  30-31;  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  154-155;  Vtrry,  American  Episcopal 
Church,  i.  418).  This  was  not  the  only  time  Massachusetts  had  taken  legis- 
lative action  on  the  matter  (see  above,  p.  225). 

^  Entitled,  An  Address  from  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  to 
the  Episcopalians  in  Virginia;  occasioned  by  some  late  Transactions  in  that 
Colony  relating  to  an  American  Episcopate  (New  York,  177 1). 

2  Address,  9. 


THE  ''ADDRESS''   OF  THE  NORTHERN  CLERGY.        237 

any  other  Bishop."  ^  Then,  by  a  citation  from  Bishop  Terrick's 
sermon  before  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  in  1764, 
they  easily  refute  the  assertion  that  an  appeal  for  a  resident 
episcopate  would  either  be  disagreeable  to  him  or  be  regarded 
by  him  in  the  light  of  a  reflection  upon  his  conduct  as  diocesan.^ 

The  remainder  of  their  paper  is  conceived  in  an  apologetic 
tone,  and,  since  it  differs  but  little  from  most  of  the  publications 
on  the  subject,  it  needs  only  a  word  or  two  here.  One  point 
they  insist  on  is  that  the  Society  has  been  consistent  from  its 
foundation,  having  always  sought  to  secure  for  the  colonies 
bishops  with  a  jurisdiction  purely  spiritual.^  They  also  scout 
the  aspersion  that  it  has  ever  had  any  design  which  did  not 
appear  on  the  surface,*  and  indignantly  deny  the  charge  that 
the  petitions  which  it  has  drawn  up  from  time  to  time  were  a 
result  of  direction  from  England,  or  that  Chandler's  Appeal  was 
written  at  the  instigation  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.^ 

To  convince  the  Virginia  public  at  large  of  what  is  wanted, 
and  what  a  part  of  the  clergy  of  their  own  colony  have  actually 
asked  for,  they  quote  from  a  public  print  ^  a  sample  of  the  pro- 
posed address  from  the  Virginia  clergy  to  the  king.  It  runs  as 
follows :  "  We  make  it  our  humble  Request,  that  the  Bishop 
appointed  may  come  over  with  no  Authority,  no  Expectation  of 
acquiring  any  in  Respect  to  the  Laity ;  that  he  may  be  em- 
powered to  interfere  with  no  Privileges,  civil  or  religious,  at 
present  enjoyed  by  any  Society  professing  Christianity,  but 
dissenting   from   the   national    Church ;    that   he   may   not   be 

'^Address,  27,  note. 

2 He  "hopes  that  a  Provision  will  be  made  for  a  more  regular  Exercise  of 
Discipline  "  in  the  colonies,  and  cannot  "  apprehend  that  this  Provision,  con- 
fined merely  to  Purposes  of  Order  and  Decency,  without  affecting  any  Privilege 
or  Distinction,  which  might  seem  to  interfere  with  the  Rights  of  Civil  Govern- 
ment, or  give  any  just  Occasion  to  those  of  a  different  persuasion,  with  whom 
we  wish  to  live  as  Friends,  and  Servants  of  the  same  common  Master,  can 
reasonably  admit  of  Objection  from  any  quarter"  (^Ibid.  27-28).  For  other 
utterances  of  Bishop  Terrick  on  this  head,  see  above,  p.  234,  note  4. 

^  Address,  30-32. 

*  Ibid.  32. 

^  Ibid.  34-35.  For  these  charges,  see  Blackburne,  Critical  Commentary, 
65,  71,  note. 

^  Purdie  and  Dixon's  Virginia  Gazette,  July  4,  1771. 


238  OPPOSITION  IN-  VIRGINIA. 

suffered  to  think  of  taking  out  of  the  Hands  of  Your  Majesty's 
Courts,  already  fixed  by  Law,  any  of  the  Business  which  they 
have  been  used  to  transact,  and  which,  it  must  be  acknowledged, 
they  have  hitherto  transacted  with  universal  Acquiescence  and 
Approbation ;  that  he  may  be  confined,  within  the  Limits  of  his 
pastoral  Charge,  to  Offices  purely  episcopal ;  and  that  he  may 
owe  a  Maintenance  suiting  his  Station  and  Dignity  (as  our 
Commissary  does  at  present)  ^  to  the  Bounty  and  Benefaction 
of  Your  Majesty,  or  to  any  other  Mode  of  Support  not  burthen- 
some  or  disagreeable  to  your  American  Subjects."  ^  Such  is  a 
brief  outhne  of  the  address  of  the  Northern  clergy  to  their 
Southern  brethren. ^ 

Gwatkin  replied  to  the  Address  in  the  following  year.*  His 
main  justification  for  the  position  which  he  takes  on  the  ques- 
tion is  based  on  grounds  of  political  expediency.  "  I  have  not," 
he  says,  "  any  aversion  to  Episcopacy  in  general,  to  the  mode 
of  it  established  in  England,  or  even  to  an  American  Episcopate, 
introduced,  at  a  proper  time,  by  proper  authority,  ajid  in  a  pivper 
vianner'" ;  but  he  protests  against  an  "  immediate  establishment," 
from  a  prudential  regard  to  tho.  practicable,  a  desire  to  preserve 
peace,  heal  divisions,  and  calm  the  angry  divisions  of  an  en- 
raged people."^  According  to  the  existing  Virginian  laws,  the 
General  Court  is,  he  says,  an  "  Ecclesiastical  Court,"  and  claims 

1  Through  the  good  offices  of  his  diocesan,  Commissary  Robinson  had 
finally  obtained  his  salary,  with  a  warrant  for  arrears.  See  a  letter  to  Bishop 
Terrick,  June  6,  1766,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  i.  (Virginia)  519-524. 

"^Address,  35. 

8  Besides  quoting  from  the  proposed  address  to  the  king,  the  authors  cite 
the  words  of  Camm,  in  an  answer  which  he  had  written  to  the  protest  of  one 
of  the  opposing  clergymen.  Camm  said,  in  effect,  that  he  would  not  have  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  application  to  the  king,  had  he  not  believed  "  that 
such  an  American  Episcopate,  as  is  at  present  desired,  by  any  of  its  Favorers, 
as  far  as  he  could  judge,  .  .  .  can  affect,  in  the  least  Degree,  neither  the  nat- 
ural Rights,  nor  the  fundamental  Laws,  nor  the  Property,  nor  the  legal  Privi- 
leges, civil  or  religious,  of  any  Body  of  Men,  or  of  any  Individual  whatever" 
(^Address,  36). 

■*  His  pamphlet  is  entitled  A  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  Occasioned  by  an  Address  to  the  Episcopalians  in  Virginia  (Williams- 
burg, 1772). 

^Ibid.  8. 


GWATKIN'S   VIEWS  ON  EPISCOPACY.  239 

"an  entire  and  complete  jurisdiction  over  the  clergy  of  the 
Province."  ^  In  his  opinion,  bishops  settled  in  Virginia  ought 
to  enjoy  all  the  powers  of  English  bishops  ;  for  otherwise  a 
precedent,  dangerous  to  the  integrity  of  the  establishment  in  the 
mother  country,  would  be  set  for  curtailing  the  powers  legally 
*  appertaining  to  the  episcopal  office.^  He  shows  that  in  Vir- 
ginia this  episcopal  power  would  involve,  in  the  first  place,  a 
seat  in  the  council ;  in  the  second  place,  the  authority  to  set  up 
ecclesiastical  courts  ;  thirdly,  jurisdiction  over  the  laity,  as  well 
as  over  the  clergy,  of  its  own  communion  ;  and,  finally,  at  least  a 
negative  on  the  choice  of  the  vestries  in  the  matter  of  presenta- 
tion.3  Obviously  all  this  would  have  clashed  with  ideas  and  institu- 
tions that  were,  by  both  law  and  custom,  firmly  rooted  in  Virginia. 
A  unique  contribution  to  the  episcopal  discussion  is  Gwatkin's 
attempt  to  prove  that  the  powers  of  a  bishop,  in  their  fulness, 
are  involved  not  only  in  the  English  state  system,  but  in  the  very 
structure  of  the  church.  In  order  to  show  this,  he  quotes  the 
following  extracts  from  the  canons :  "  Priests  and  Deacons  must 
do  nothing  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  Bishop  " 
(Apostolical  Canons ) ;  "  Priests  are  not  allowed  to  proceed  to 
business  without  the  license  of  their  Bishop  "  (Canons  of  An- 
cyra) ;  "  If  any  priest  go  to  the  Emperor  without  the  Consent 
and  Letters  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Province,  and  especially  of  the 
Metropolitan,  he  shall  not  only  be  ejected  from  the  communion, 
but  also  be  deprived  of  his  dignity ;  but  if  Business  require  him 
to  make  any  application,  he  shall  do  it  with  the  Advice  and 
Consent  of  the  said  Metropolitan  and  Bishop,  and  leave  their 
Letters"  (Antiochian  Canon).*  This  argument,  reenforced 
though  it  is  by  a  formidable  array  of  quotations,  really  amounts 
to  nothing,  since  it  only  proves  the  necessary  subjection  of 
priests  to  their  bishops ;  and  this  was  something  which  every 
advocate  for  an  American  episcopate  desired  and  provided  for, 
even  in  his  most  limited  plans. 

"^  A  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey.,  Occasioned  by  an 
Address  to  the  Episcopalians  in  Virginia  (Williamsburg,  1772),  11. 
^  This  argument  had  been  often  used  before. 
^  Ibid.  12-15. 
"^  Ibid.  Postscript. 


240  OPPOSITION  IN  VIRGINIA. 

Such  is  the  general  character  of  the  reasoning  of  Gwatkin, 
who  apparently  had  the  last  word  to  say  in  the  discussion. 
Many  of  his  arguments  are  either  technical  or  faulty,  or  at  best 
of  mere  antiquarian  interest.  An  attempt  to  estimate  them  at 
their  true  worth  has  shown  that  the  root  of  his  objection,  and 
probably  of  that  held  by  those  who  actively  supported  his  pro- 
tests, is  the  old  one  which  we  have  so  often  had  occasion  to  con- 
sider, that  bishops  would  of  necessity  come  over  vested  with 
state  powers,  which,  involving  encroachments  on  the  existing 
colonial  system,  would  tend  to  increase  the  opposition  to  the 
home  government,  already  strained  to  the  danger  point.^ 

^  This  is  well  voiced  in  an  earlier  protest  written  by  Hewitt  and  Bland. 
"  As  the  Right  of  appointing  them  [bishops]  is  vested  in  the  Crown,"  they 
say,  "  and  will,  at  present,  be  delegated  to  a  Ministry,  whose  Sentiments  have 
ever  appeared  extremely  hostile  and  inimical  to  the  common  Rights  of  Man- 
kind, it  can  never  be  thought  for  the  Interests  of  Religion,  in  the  present  Situ- 
ation of  political  Affairs,  to  extend  the  Power  of  the  Crown,  and  the  Influence 
of  such  Ministers  .  .  .  Such  Ministers  in  the  Appointment  of  an  American 
Bishop  could  never  think  of  chusing  a  Man  the  most  proper  and  fitting  to 
discharge  the  Functions  of  so  important  an  Office.  They  would  only  be  solici- 
tous to  meet  with  a  Person  of  blind  Submission  and  unlimited  Obedience  who 
should  never  feel  any  Remorse  in  executing  what  they,  in  their  Omnipotence, 
should  command  him"  (cited  in  the  Address^  38-39)- 


CHAPTER   XI. 

FROM  SHERLOCK'S    DEATH    TO   THE    REVOLUTION,  1761-1775. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  history  of  the  episcopal  question 
in  the  colonies  from  the  death  of  Sherlock  to  the  beginning  of 
the  Revolution.  Sherlock's  successor  was  Thomas  Hayter. 
He  was  consecrated  October  5,  1761,  but  died  January  9,  1762,^ 
before  he  had  time  to  identify  himself  in  any  way  with  the  colo- 
nies. Hayter  was  succeeded  by  Richard  Osbaldeston,  who 
continued  in  office  till  his  death  in  1764.^  He  seems  to  have 
possessed  the  esteem  and  confidence  of  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
for  they  consulted  him  frequently  on  colonial  church  matters.^ 
Although  always  willing  to  give  an  opinion  on  such  occasions, 
he  was  extremely  careful  not  to  meddle  with  any  cases  except 
those  relating  to  the  maintenance  of  the  clergy  or  the  status 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  those  colonies  where  it  was  estab- 
lished,.  For  this  reason  he  refused  to  decide  upon  the  legality 
of  an  "Act  for  Propagating  Christian  Knowledge,"  of  which 
Henry  Caner,  rector  of  King's  Chapel,  Boston,  had  complained 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  in  turn  had  handed  the 
matter  over  to  Osbaldeston.* 

On  the  other  hand,  the  question  of  the  North  Carolina  vestry 
acts,^  which  was  still  unsettled,^  gave  the  bishop  an  opportunity 
to  make  several  declarations  of  interest.  The  act  of  1755  hav- 
ing been  annulled  by  the  crown,  the  assembly  of  North  Carolina 

^  For  Hayter,  see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  xxv.  305-307. 

^ /did.  xlii.  275-276. 

^  From  long-established  custom,  for  he  was  no  longer  by  law  diocesan  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  colonies.  Cf.  Archbishop  Seeker  to  Dr.  Caner, 
October  6,  1762,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts)  474-476. 

*  Osbaldeston  to  Seeker.  October  11,  1762,  Ibid.  476-477. 

^  The  Church  of  England  was  at  least  partially  established  in  North  Caro- 
lina during  this  period ;  its  regular  establishment  was  first  secured  by  an  act 
of  assembly  of  May,  1765.     See  North  Carolina  Records,  vii.  472-491. 

®  See  above,  p.  130  ff. 


242     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO    THE  REVOLUTION. 

in  1760  passed  two  other  laws,  which  reached  the  hands  of 
Bishop  Hayter  for  consideration  November  25,  1761.  After 
his  death  they  were  returned  to  the  province  by  his  executors. 
Nothing  farther  was  done  until  the  following  spring,  when,  on 
March  18,  1762,  the  Board  of  Trade  ordered  its  secretary,  Mr. 
Pownal,  to  transmit  the  two  acts  to  the  new  bishop,  in  order 
that  he  might  pass  an  opinion  on  them,  "so  far  as  they  regard 
the  establishment  of  the  Church  of  England  in  that  Colony  the 
right  of  patronage  to  livings  and  the  method  established  for  the 
suspension  or  removal  of  Ministers  guilty  of  immorality."  ^ 

On  the  3d  of  May,  Bishop  Osbaldeston  sent  his  reply.  His 
objections  were  directed  mainly  against  a  provision  in  the  last 
part  of  one  of  the  laws,  in  regard  to  the  punishing  of  irregular 
clergymen.  The  act  proposed  to  set  up  a  new  jurisdiction  for 
prosecuting  offenders,  by  lodging  the  articles  of  complaint 
against  them  in  the  temporal  courts,  "  which,"  according  to  the 
bishop,  "  have  an  undoubted  Right  to  judge  in  temporal  Mat- 
ters ;  but  Immoralities  being  spiritual  Crimes  whether  in  the 
Minister  or  people,  wherever  the  Church  of  England  has  been 
established  these  have  always  been  censured  in  the  Ecclesiastical 
Courts  by  the  Bishop  or  his  Commissaries.  To  set  up  any  other 
authority  for  this  purpose  is  taking  away  the  little  Remains  of 
Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  if  any  is  left  in  that  province  and  re- 
ducing the  Bishop  of  London  by  the  Act  only  to  certify  as  a  public 
/  Notary  that  the  Minister  is  duly  ordained.  This  part  of  the 
Act  is  contrary  to  the  common  principles  of  Justice,  to  punish 
spiritual  Crimes  in  temporal  Courts.  It  is  likewise  contrary  to 
an  express  Law  in  North  Carolina,  which  enacts  that  all  Statutes 
made  in  England  for  the  Establishment  of  the  Church  shall  be 
in  force  there."  ^  He  should  have  said  that  such  offences  had 
been  tried  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  during  the  time  of  Gibson  ; 
but  that,  after  his  commission  had  lapsed  with  his  death,  such 
courts  ceased  to  have  any  legal  status.^  According  to  the  letter 
of  the  law,  therefore,  Osbaldeston's  contention  was  unsound. 

^  North  Caj'fllina  Records,  vi.  751. 
"^  North  Carolina  Records,  vi.  714-716. 

'  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  were  at  this  time  no  spiritual  courts  in  the  prov- 
ince {Ibid.  vii.  483). 


THE  NORTH  CAROLIIVA    VESTRY  ACT  OF  1763.        243 

Nevertheless,  his  objections  seem  to  have  had  weight  with  the 
Lords  of  Trade ;  for  soon  afterward,  they  presented  the  two 
acts,  entitled  respectively  "An  Act  for  estabHshing  Vestries" 
and  "  an  Act  for  making  Provision  for  an  Orthodox  Clergy," 
to  the  king,  with  a  recommendation  that  he  reject  them.  This 
was  done  by  his  Majesty  in  a  sitting  of  the  Privy  Council  held 
at  the  court  of  St.  James  on  June  3,  1762.^  So  long  as  Bishop 
Osbaldeston  occupied  the  see  of  London,  he  saw  to  it  that  his 
functions,  or  what  he  regarded  as  such,  were  not  infringed  upon. 

His  successor,  Richard  Terrick  (i  764-1 777),  did  not  take 
such  high  ground.^  More  than  one  of  his  utterances  show  that 
he  had  come  to  recognize,  as  fully  as  Sherlock  did,  the  impo- 1 
fence  of  the  colonial  authority  formerly  appertaining  to  the  see 
of  London,  and  the  necessity  of  substituting  for  it  a  system  of 
control  by  resident  bishops ;  ^  but  either  from  want  of  energy  or 
because  of  the  more  unfavorable  circumstances  which  had  arisen, 
he  made  no  efforts  to  alter  the  existing  conditions. 

Meanwhile,  the  North  Carolina  assembly  had  passed  a  new 
vestry  act,  which  gave  less  authority  to  the  people  and  more  to 
the  crown,  and,  in  cases  of  clerical  immorality,  allowed  an  appeal 
from  the  sentence  of  the  provincial  governor  to  the  Bishop  of 
London.^  Bishop  Terrick,  to  whom  it  was  referred,  wrote  to 
the  Board  of  Trade,  January  13,  1766,  approving  the  act.^  He 
gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  new  law  is  free  from  the  objec- 
tionable features  of  the  acts  of  1755  and  1760,  namely,  the 
provisions  relating  to  powers  claimed  by  the  vestries  with  regard 
to  the  right  of  presentation,  and  those  affecting  the  prerogative 
of  the  crown.  He  holds  that,  since  it  is  silent  concerning  any 
claims  to  such  rights,  it  impliedly  leaves  them  vested  in  the 
crown,  to  be  exercised  by  the  governor  by  virtue  of  his  patent 
from  the  king.      Many   subterfuges,  however,  remained  open 

^  North  Carolina  Records,  vi.  723 . 

^For  Terrick,  see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography^  Ivi.  78-79. 

^  For  examples,  see  above,  p.  234,  note  4. 

*  The  right  of  presentation  was  transferred  from  the  vestries  to  the  crown 
(see  pamphlet  in  Eulhain  MSS.).  It  was  by  this  act  that  the  first  regular 
establishment  of  the  Church  of  England  in  North  Carolina  was  secured. 

^ North  Carolina  Records,  vii.  150-153. 


244     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH   TO   THE  REVOLUTION. 

to  the  vestries  which  the  governor  could  neither  foresee   nor 
prevent. 

In  his  letter  the  bishop  also  makes  incidentally  some  interest- 

,  ing  comments  on  his  conception  of  his  own  jurisdiction.  Under 
the  new  act  he  sees  no  need  of  any  certificate  from  the  Bishop 
of  London  as  a  prerequisite  to  candidacy  for  induction ;  for  this 
restriction  formerly  acted,  he  says,  only  as  a  check  on  the  ves- 

.  tries.  Since  the  right  is  now  vested  in  the  governor,  security 
from  any  one  of  the  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  would, 
in  his  opinion,  be  sufficient.^ 

He  notes,  further,  that  the  act  provides  "  that  if  any  Incum- 

i  bent  shall  be  guilty  of  any  gross  Crime  or  Immorality,  it  shall 
be  lawful  for  the  Governor  with  the  advice  of  His  Majesty's 
Council  to  suspend  him ;  and  that  such  suspension  shall  remain 
until  such  time  as  the  Bishop  of  London  shall  either  restore  or 
pass  sentence  of  Deprivation  upon  him  by  notifying  the  same 
to  the  Governor." 2  Concerning  this  provision  he  asks:  "But 
by  what  authority  can  the  Bishop  of  London  (who  has  no  Com- 
miss''  from  the  Crown)  proceed  judicially  to  restore  or  to  pass 
Sentence  of  Deprivat" .''  As  the  case  stands  at  present  the 
Bishop  cannot  deprive  him,  however  guilty,  or  if  the  Governor 
suspends  the  Clergyman,  however  innocent,  he  must  remain  sus- 
pended if  it  depends  on  the  Bishop  to  restore  him."  ^ 

1  Terrick's  recommendation  on  this  matter  was  not  adopted,  and  the  Bishop 
of  London  continued  to  enjoy  the  sole  right  of  issuing  certificates  (see  Gov- 
ernor Tryon  to  the  Reverend  D.  Burton,  secretary  of  the  Society,  April  30, 
1767  {North  Carolina  Records,  vii.  457-458). 

^  This  seems  to  have  been  the  only  act  passed  by  any  colonial  assembly 
making  any  such  provision. 

^  Terrick  got  out  of  the  difficulty  by  granting  the  governor  "  full  power  and 
authority  over  the  clergy"  (Reverend  James  Reed  to  the  secretary  of  the 
Society,  July  2,  1771,  North  Carolina  Records,  ix.  5).  I  find  no  record  that 
the  act  was  either  confirmed  or  rejected  by  the  crown.  On  March  20,  1767, 
"  their  Lordships  took  [it]  into  consideration  .  .  .  together  with  the  Bishop 
of  London's  Observations  thereupon  in  his  letter  to  the  Board  dated  13"^  January 
1766,  and  it  was  Ordered,  that  the  Draught  of  a  Representation  to  His  Majesty 
thereupon  should  be  prepared  —  which  was  approved,  transcribed,  and  signed 
30*''  March"  (^Ibid.  vii.  546).  Since  the  Bishop's  recommendation  was  favor- 
able, and  since  the  attitude  of  his  predecessors  had  been  the  main  cause  of  the 
rejection  of  former  acts,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  at  least  the  crown  did  not 


TERRICICS  COMMENTS  OAT  HIS  JURISDICTION:        245 

Led  up  to  the  subject  by  a  consideration  of  these  questions, 
Terrick  next  takes  occasion  to  observe  "  not  only  how  defective 
the  Bishop  of  London's  Jurisdict"  is  in  the  plantations,  but  what 
Inconveniences  arise  from  that  defect.  It  is  far  from  being 
clear,"  he  says,  "that  a  Commiss"  granted  to  the  Bishop  of 
London  as  it  was  to  Bishop  Gibson  wo*^  be  an  adequate  remedy 
to  those  Inconveniences :  Bishop  Sherlock,  who  certainly  co*^ 
Judge  as  well  as  any  man  how  far  the  powers  given  by  that 
Commiss*^  wo'^  enable  him  to  go,  and  who  it  is  to  be  supposed 
had  no  objecf*  to  the  exercise  of  any  Jurisdict"  which  wo** 
answer  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  intended,  stated  his  object" 
to  such  a  Commission  to  his  late  Majesty  in  Council  as  defec- 
tive in  many  parts  of  it  and  giving  Powers  which  no  Bishop  at 
this  distance  from  the  Plantat"^  co'^  exercise  effectually."  ^  The 
supposition  that  Bishop  Sherlock  would  have  been  willing  to 
undertake  the  charge  of  the  colonies  under  a  commission  arm- 
ing him  with  adequate  powers  has  been  shown  to  be  erroneous. 
He  was  totally  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  any  such  powers,  and 
was  bent  upon  shifting  the  seat  of  episcopal  power  from  the 
mother  country  to  the  colonies. 

After  reviewing  the  reasons  of  his  predecessor  for  wishing 
a  colonial  episcopate,  and  the  history  of  his  attempts  to  secure 
it,  Terrick  adds  :  "  And  whoever  considers  the  superior  Abilities  , 
of  Bishop  Sherlock,  as  well  as  the  more  enlarged  extent  of  our 
dominions  in  America  since  his  time,  will  readily  allow  that  the ' 
same  objections  may  be  urged  with  additional  strength  by  one 
who  by  experience  feels  the  force  of  them  &  sees  too  much  rea- 
son to  lament  that  with  the  best  inclinat"^  to  do  his  duty  He 
feels  himself  unequal  to  that  important  part  of  it  —  the  care  and 
superintendency  of  Religion  in  the  Plantations."  ^ 

annul  the  new  act.  Moreover,  several  indications  go  to  show  that  it  was 
accepted  by  the  home  government.  For  example,  Governor  Tryon,  in  a  letter 
to  the  Reverend  T.  S.  Drage,  July  9,  1770,  speaks  of  the  Church  of  England 
as  "a  Religion  that  was  ...  by  Act  of  the  Legislature  in  1765  established 
upon  the  most  solid  foundation"  {Ibid.  viii.  217).  At  any  rate,  until  Tryon 
was  transferred  to  New  York  in  1771,  he  always  acted  upon  this  assumption; 
and  the  act  was  practically  in  force  in  the  province  for  some  years,  and  seems 
to  have  materially  strengthened  the  position  of  the  Church  of  England  there. 
"^  North  Carolina  Records,  vii.  153.  '^  Ibid. 


246     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION. 

Manifestly,  Sherlock  had  fixed  his  policy  on  his  successors. 

•  Following  in  the  footsteps  of  their  zealous  predecessor,  they 
desired  bishops  for  the  colonies ;  they  refused  to  take  out  corn- 
missions  for  the  legal  exercise  of  an  authority  which  appertained 
to  them  from  immemorial  custom;  and,  except  in  rare  instances, 
they  declined  to  interfere  actively  in  colonial  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
As  has  been  said  before,  just  what  motives  actuated  the  initiator 

'  of  this  policy  it  is  hard  to  tell.  If  Sherlock's  own  assertions  be 
accepted,  the  diocese  was  growing  beyond  the  control  of  a  single 
/  man,  and  a  non-resident  at  that ;  or,  if  we  go  beyond  his  own 
statement,  perhaps  he  was  influenced  by  a  personal  disinclina- 
tion to  undertake  an  onerous  task  which  he  felt  did  not  properly 
belong  to  him ;  or,  finally,  he  may  have  refused  to  perform  the  • 
functions  of  a  colonial  diocesan  that  he  might  make  the  need 
of  a  resident  episcopate  more  imperative  and  more  apparent, 
'  and  so  force  its  establishment.     But  why  did  he  desire  bishops 

•  for  the  colonies  ?    Here  again,  three  conjectures  at  least  are  pos-^ 
sible.     It  may  have  been  that  he  was  moved  by  an  honorable  ■ 
desire  to  further  the  spiritual  interests  of    his  fellow-behevers 
beyond  the  seas ;  it  may  have  been  that  he  had  a  selfish  wish  to   \ 
shift  the  burden  of  the  charge  from  his  own  hands  into  others'  ; 
or,  in  accordance  with  the  Jacobian  maxim  of  "  no  bishop  no 
king,"  he  may  have  been  following  the  Laudian  policy  of  ex- 
tending the  authority  of  the  Church  of  England  establishment 
for  the  purpose  of  rehabilitating  the  steadily  crumbling  political 
structure  in  the  colonies.     Perhaps  all  these  considerations  had 

•  a  share  in  influencing  his  action.  But  whatever  object  he  had 
in  mind,  he  regarded  it  necessary,  as  the  first  step  in  its  attain- 
ment, to  show  that  the  Bishop  of  London  was  incapable,  not  only 
de  facto,  but  also  dc  jure,  of  exercising  any  ecclesiastical  author- 

•  ity  over  the  colonial  dependencies  of  Great  Britain.  In  his 
efforts  to  secure  his  end,  he  struck  a  blow  at  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don's power  in  the  colonies  from  which  it  never  recovered,  and 
he  succeeded  in  stamping  his  policy  indelibly  upon  those  who 
came  after  him.  From  his  time  on,  we  never  again  find  any 
incumbent  of  the  see  conscious  of  the  rights,  or  active  in  the 
exercise,  of  his  colonial  jurisdiction. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  during  the  period  between  the 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  COMMISSARIES  ADVOCATED.     247 

death  of  Sherlock  and  the  Revolution.  The  authority  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  had  faded  to  such  a  pale  tradition  that,  in 
spite  of  the  laws  establishing  the  Church  of  England,  which  still 
remained  on  the  statute  books  of  some  of  the  colonies,  a  con- 
temporaneous historian  was  justified  in  stating  broadly  that  there 
was  really  no  provincial  church  government.^  Naturally,  many 
remedies  were  suggested,  of  which,  as  has  been  seen,  that  most 
frequently  urged  was  the  settlement  of  resident  bishops.  But 
other  plans  were  also  put  forward.  For  example,  the  author 
just  alluded  to  remarks  that  perhaps  a  superintendent  from  the 
"Society  of  1701  might  have  a  good  effect,  with  a  power  and 
instructions  to  remove  missionaries  from  one  station  to  another, 
as  the  interest  of  propagating  the  gospel  might  require."  2  Dr. 
William  Smith,  provost  of  the  College  of  Philadelphia,  later  a 
stanch  supporter  of  the  plan  of  introducing  bishops,^  advocated, 
in  1762,  the  restoration  of  commissaries,  who  should  have  more 
power  than  they  had  hitherto  possessed  and  should  be  distributed 
as  follows  :  one  for  the  district  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachu- 
setts, and  Rhode  Island,  with  a  residence  at  Boston ;  one  for 
the  district  of  Connecticut  and  New  York,  with  a  residence  at 
New  York ;  one  for  the  district  of  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey,  with  a  residence  at  Philadelphia;  one  for  Maryland,  if 
Lord  Baltimore  would  give  his  countenance  and  authority  to 
support  him  in  his  duty ;  one  for  Virginia,  to  reside  at  the  Col- 
lege of  William  and  Mary  ;  one  for  the  district  of  North  and 
South  Carolina,  with  a  residence  probably  at  Charleston.^  / 

These  suggestions,  however,  met  with  scant  consideration,^ 

^  Meaning,  of  course,  according  to  the  Church  of  England  system.  See 
Douglass,  S!im7nary,  i.  230. 

2  IHd. 

^  See  above,  ch.  viii.  passim. 

*  The  seat  of  the  commissary  for  Maryland  was  evidently  not  determined ; 
perhaps  it  was  meant  to  be  left  to  the  proprietary.  Delaware  was,  of  course, 
intended  to  be  included  in  the  district  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey,  and 
Georgia  probably  in  that  of  North  and  South  Carolina.  See  Dr.  Smith's 
'*  General  Account,"  in  Fulham  MSS. 

5  Nevertheless,  February  3.  1763.  the  clergy  of  Pennsylvania  sent  an 
address  to  Bishop  Osbaldeston,  praying  that  he  would  make  Dr.  Smith  their 
Q.ovc\m\?:'s,2Ccy  (^Fulham  MSS.). 


248     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION: 

for  the  episcopal  question  was  the  leading  topic  of  the  hour. 
Having  already  described  the  various  controversies  waged  on 
the  subject,  and  the  arguments  urged  for  and  against  the  plan, 
we  shall  now  examine  the  correspondence  between  the  leading 
Episcopal  clergymen  in  the  colonies  and  the  bishops  in  England. 
In  this  way  we  can  supplement  the  public  by  the  private  utter- 
ances of  the  pro-episcopal  party,  in  order  to  make  sure  whether 
its  real  and  its  assigned  motives  always  agreed. 
.  The  accession  of  King  George  III.,^  and  the  prospect  of  a 
speedy  termination  of  the  war  which  had  been  for  some  years 
engaging  the  attention  and  taxing  all  the  energies  of  the  Eng- 
lish nation,  gave  a  glimmer  of  hope  to  those  earnest  in  the 
cause  of  American  bishops.  Accordingly,  Dr.  Johnson  sent  a 
letter  to  Archbishop  Seeker  to  sound  him  on  the  advisability  of 
moving  the  new  sovereign  to  settle  bishops  in  the  colonies  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  peace,  and  enclosed  the  draft  of  a  pro- 
posed address  to  his  Majesty .^  Seeker,  however,  thinking  that 
the  time  was  not  yet  ripe,  and  fearing  that  any  rash  step  might 
ruin  the  whole  cause,  at  once  replied,  "  This  is  a  matter  of 
which  you  in  America  cannot  judge ;  and  therefore  I  beg  you 
will  attempt  nothing  without  the  advice  of  the  Society,  or  of  the 
Bishops."^  Indeed,  Seeker's  whole  energy  at  this  time  was 
bent  toward  checking  the  rather  unbridled  zeal  of  his  colonial 
correspondent.  This  attitude  is  best  seen  in  an  undated  answer 
to  a  letter  from  Johnson  of  July  13,  1760.  Johnson  had  pre- 
pared a  paper  for  the  London  Magazine,  and  also  letters  for  Lord 
Halifax  and  William  Pitt,  and  had  sent  them  to  Seeker  for  his 
approval.  The  Archbishop,  while  acknowledging  the  truth  and 
justice  of  the  statements  contained  in  the  article  submitted  to 
him,  was  nevertheless  opposed  to  publishing  them  unseasonably 
to  the  world,  and  thought  that  even  when  the  right  time  should 
come,  the  preferable  method  would  be  a  private  application  to 
such  persons  as  had  the  ear  of  the  king.  To  flaunt  the  matter 
in  a  pubhc  magazine,  the  character  and  reputation  of  which  his 

^  October  25,  1760. 

2  See  Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  256 ;  Chandler,  lAfe  of  Johnson,  Appendix, 
184-188  (Seeker  to  Johnson,  December  10,  1761). 

3  Ibid. 


CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING   TO  BISHOPS.  249 

Grace  justly  held  in  low  esteem,  would  be  the  surest  way  to  draw 
down  upon  their  cause  the  contempt  of  those  men  in  high  posi- 
tions whose  good  opinion  it  was  necessary  to  secure.^  After 
this  reproof  he  rewards  his  correspondent  with  a  crumb  of  com- 
fort by  way  of  assuring  him  that  he  has  not  been  idle  in  their 

/  common  cause.  "  I  have  spoken,"  he  says,  "  concerning  a  new 
Lieutenant-governor,  in  the  manner  which  you  desired,  to  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle  and  Mr.  Pitt,  and  also  to  Lord  HaHfax,  in 
whom  the  choice  is.  They  all  admit  the  request  to  be  a  very 
reasonable  and  important  one,  and  promise  that  care  shall  be 
'taken  about  it.     The  last  of  them  is  very  earnest  for  bishops  in 

/  America.  I  hope  we  may  have  a  chance  to  succeed  in  that 
great  point,  when  it  shall  please  God  to  bless  us  with  a  peace." 

"Owing  to  the  fall  of  the  Newcastle  ministry,  which  followed 
hard  upon  the  writing  of  this  letter,  the  sincerity  of  its  promises 
was  never  put  to  the  test,  and  the  subject  was  again  left  hanging. 
It  will  be  unnecessary  to  follow  in  detail  the  correspondence 
of  this  period,  abounding  as  it  does  in  expressions  of  alternate 
hope  and  fear.  If  it  ever  happened,  as  it  did  in  a  few  cases, 
that  some  member  of  the  ministry  promised  to  bring  the  mat- 
ter up  for  consideration,  adverse  circumstances  invariably  oc- 
curred to  prevent  him  from  keeping  his  word.^    Johnson  and  his 

1  For  the  letter,  see  Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson^  252-253 ;  Chandler,  Life 
of  fo/uison.  Appendix,  179-182. 

2  See,  for  example,  a  letter  from  Seeker  to  Johnson,  March  30,  1763,  in 
Ch2ind\tuLifeoffohnson,  Appendix.  191-195-  On  September  28, 1763,  he  wrote 
again  to  Johnson  :  "  What  will  be  done  about  Bishops,  I  cannot  guess.  Appli- 
cation for  them  was  made  to  Lord  Egremont,  who  promised  to  consult  with  the 
other  ministers,  but  died  without  making  any  report  from  them.  His  successor, 
Lord  Halifax,  is  a  friend  to  the  scheme ;  but  I  doubt  whether  in  the  present 
weak  state  of  the  ministry  he  will  dare  to  meddle  with  what  will  certainly  raise 
opposition"  (Beardsley,  Life  of fohnson,  276-278).  Compare  also  Seeker  to 
the  Reverend  Jacob  Duche,  September  16,  1763,  in  Perry,  Historical  Collec- 
tions, ii.  (Pennsylvania)  389-391.  Writing  again  to  Dr.  Johnson,  May  22, 
1764,  he  says:  "The  affair  of  American  Bishops  continues  in  suspense. 
Lord  Willoughby  of  Parham,  the  only  English  Dissenting  Peer,  and  Dr. 
Chandler  have  declared,  after  our  scheme  was  fully  laid  before  them,  that 
they  saw  no  objection  against  it.  The  Duke  of  Bedford,  Lord  President, 
hath  given  a  calm  and  favorable  hearing  to  it,  hath  desired  it  may  be  reduced 
into  writing,  and  promised  to  consult  about  it  with  the  other  ministers  at  his 


250    FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION: 

adherents,  in  their  letters  written  at  this  period,  suggest  one 
expedient  after  another,  only  to  find  themselves  checkmated  at 
every  move.  One  result  of  these  successive  disappointments 
was  to  alienate  what  little  sympathy  this  coterie  of  prominent 
Episcopal  clergymen  in  America  had  ever  had  for  free  colonial 
institutions,  and  it  had  always  been  dubious  enough.  This  fact 
crops  out  from  time  to  time  in  the  correspondence.  "  Is  there 
then  nothing  more  that  can  be  done,"  writes  Johnson  to  Seeker, 
December  20,  1763,  "either  for  obtaining  bishops  or  demolish- 
ing these  pernicious  charter  governments,  and  reducing  them 
all  to  one  form  in  immediate  dependence  on  the  king  ?  I  can- 
not help  calling  them  pernicious,  for  they  are  indeed  so  as  well 
for  the  best  good  of  the  people  themselves  as  for  the  interests 
of  true  religion."  ^  Apparently  oblivious  of  the  fact  that  the 
home  government,  which  had  never,  since  the  end  of  the  pre- 
vious century,  taken  any  steps  toward  setting  up  a  colonial 
episcopate,  had  as  a  government  shown  no  indications  of 
changing  its  policy,  the  pro-episcopal  leaders  attributed  to  it 
a  disposition  in  their  favor  which  was  only  restrained  by  the 
powerful  political  influence  of  the  dissenters.  Hence  such 
utterances   as  those  of  Johnson,    should  they  by  any  chance 

first  leisure.  Indeed,"  he  continues,  ''  I  see  not  how  Protestant  Bishops  can 
decently  be  refused  us,  as  in  all  probability  a  Popish  one  will  be  allowed, 
by  connivance  at  least,  in  Canada"  (Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  280-283; 
Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson,  Appendix,  195-198;  Hawkins,  Missio7is  of  the 
Church  of  England,  393). 

1  The  whole  letter  is  printed  in  Beardsley  Life  of  Johnson,  278-280. 
Writing  again,  September  20,  1764,  he  says:  "With  regard  to  the  settling 
Episcopacy  in  these  countries  ...  I  know  that  all  the  Church  people  (except 
a  few  luke-warm  persons  and  free-thinking  pretenders  to  it,  and  sometimes 
attendants  on  it,  but  are  really  enemies  to  any  establishment)  are  very  desir- 
ous of  it ;  and  that  all  moderate  Dissenters,  who,  I  believe,  are  the  most 
numerous  in  the  whole,  and  who  know  what  is  really  designed,  have  little  or 
no  objection  to  it ;  and  that  the  number  of  such  bitter  zealots  against  it  is 
comparatively  few,  and  chiefly  in  these  two  governments  [Massachusetts  Bay 
and  Connecticut],  either  such  loose  thinkers  as  Mayhew,  who  can  scarcely  be 
accounted  better  Christians  than  the  Turks,  or  such  furious  bitter  Calvinisti- 
cal  enthusiasts  as  are  really  no  more  friends  to  monarchy  than  Episcopacy ; 
and  against  people  of  both  these  sorts  Episcopacy  is  really  necessary  towards 
the  better  securing  our  dependence,  as  well  as  many  other  good  political  pur- 
poses'   (/iJ/«^.  294-297). 


EPISCOPACY  AND   INDEPENDENCE.  25 1 

have  become  public,  could  have  had  no  other  effect  than  to 
prejudice  their  own  prospects,  as  well  as  the  cause  of  peace 
between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country. 

Since  the  consideration  of  the  subject  thus  far  has  shown  how 
potent  a  factor  the  episcopal  question  was  in  forcing  apart  the 
two  great  branches  of  the  English  race,  it  seems  almost  incredi- 
ble that  persons  could  have  been  found  in  those  days  who 
maintained  that  the  timely  establishment  of  an  American  epis- 
copate would  have  been  one  of  the  surest  means  of  cementing 
them  and  of  averting  the  separation  which  followed.  Yet  such 
was  the  fact.  The  view  is  most  clearly  set  forth  in  a  letter 
of  Chandler  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society,  January  15,  1766. 
Having  pictured  the  political  situation  after  the  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act,  and  commented  on  what  he  regards  as  the  excesses 
of  his  countrymen.  Chandler  adds  that  "if  the  interest  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  America  had  been  made  a  National  Con- 
cern from  the  beginning,  by  this  time  a  general  submission  in 
the  Colonies  to  the  Mother  Country  in  everything  not  sinful 
might  have  been  expected  " ;  and  he  goes  on  to  say  that  the 
home  government  is  under  great  obligation  to  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel  for  its  efforts  in  assisting  the  church, 
and  thus  indirectly  in  securing  the  loyalty  and  fidelity  of  the 
colonists.^  And  this  was  no  isolated  or  ephemeral  notion. 
The  same  idea  was  expressed  by  the  clergy  of  Massachusetts 
and  Rhode  Island  in  a  convention  opened  at  Boston,  June  6,1 
1767,2  and  as  late  as  1775,  by  Bishop  Lowth,  in  a  letter  tq 
Dr.  Chandler.'^     But  any  careful  study  of  the  Puritan  mind  anq 

^  This  letter  is  cited  more  fiilly  above,  p.  113,  note  r. 

2  They  say  :  "  We  flattered  ourselves  that  such  an  extensive  territory  as  was 
heretofore  possessed,  and  hath  since  been  added  to  the  British  dominions  by 
the  late  war,  would  certainly  have  been  followed  by  some  provision  of  this 
kind ;  but  especially  the  late  popular  tumults  in  these  colonies,  we  imagined, 
would  have  strongly  pointed  out  the  necessity  of  such  a  step  towards  the 
uniting  and  attaching  the  colonies  to  the  mother  country,  and  have  silenced 
every  objection  that  could  be  raised  against  it"  (Hawkins,  Missions  of  the 
Chtirch  of  England,  396-397,  quoting  from  a  report  to  the  Society). 

3  He  says  :  "  If  it  shall  please  God  that  these  unhappy  tumults  be  quieted, 
and  peace  and  order  restored  (which  event  I  am  sanguine  enough  to  think 
is  not  far  distant),  we  may  reasonably  hope  that  our  governors  will  be 
taught,  by  experience,  to  have  some  regard   to   the  Church  of  England  in 


252     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION. 

of  previous  colonial  history  makes  it  evident  that  such  a  step 
would  probably  have  had  the  result  of  precipitating,  rather  than 
of  retarding,  the  struggle  which  other  circumstances  made  inevi- 
table sooner  or  later. 

The  Stamp  Act,  however,  spoiled  what  little  chance  the  Epis- 
copalians had  ever  had  of  securing  their  long-cherished  wish. 
The  question  was  agitated,  indeed,  long  afterward,  till  the  near 
approach  of  the  war  and  the  accompanying  excitement  crowded 
it  to  one  side ,''  but  it  is  certain  that,  from  this  time  on,  though 
they  did  not  publicly  admit  it,  two  of  the  prominent  leaders  in 
England  and  America  began  to  despair.^ 

America'"  (the  Society's  Digest,  Appendix,  748).  See  also  Chandler,  Life  of 
Johnson,  Appendix,  205-208  ;  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Ciiiirch  of  England^ 
401. 

1  In  1765  Johnson  wrote  to  Seeker:  "These  people  will  stick  at  nothing 
to  gain  their  point.  It  seems  they  make  gentlemen  beheve  that  nineteen 
twentieths  of  America  are  wholly  against  it  [the  introduction  of  bishops] 
themselves,  and  that  it  would  make  a  more  dangerous  clamor  and  discontent 
than  the  Stamp  Act  itself,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  false.  Had  it 
been  done  last  spring  (when  the  dissenters  themselves  expected  nothing 
else),  and  the  Stamp-Act  postponed  till  the  next,  it  would  have  been  but  a 
nine-days'  wonder,  nor  do  I  believe  one-half  of  the  people  of  America  would 
have  been  much,  if  at  all,  uneasy  about  it"  (Beardsley,  Episcopal  Chtirch  in 
Connecticut,  i.  243).  Seeker,  in  a  letter  to  Johnson,  July  31,  1776,  gives 
additional  testimony  on  this  point.  "  It  is  very  probable,"  he  says,  "  that  a 
Bishop  or  Bishops  would  have  been  quietly  received  in  America  before  the 
Stamp-act  was  passed  here.  But  it  is  certain  that  we  could  get  no  permission 
here  to  send  one.  Earnest  and  continued  endeavors  have  been  used  with 
our  successive  ministers,  but  without  obtaining  more  than  promises  to  con- 
sider and  confer  about  the  matter,  which  promises  have  never  been  fulfilled. 
...  Of  late  indeed  it  hath  not  been  prudent  to  do  anything  unless  at 
Quebec.  And  therefore  the  Address  from  the  clergy  of  Connecticut,  which 
arrived  here  in  December  last,  and  that  from  the  clergy  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  which  arrived  in  January,  have  not  been  presented  to  the  King. 
But  he  hath  been  acquainted  with  the  prospect  of  them,  and  directed  them  to 
be  postponed  to  a  fitter  time.  In  the  mean  while  I  wish  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don would  take  out  a  patent  like  Bishop  Gibson's,  only  somewhat  improved. 
For  then  he  might  appoint  commissaries,  and  we  might  set  up  corresponding 
societies,  as  we  have  for  some  time  intended,  with  those  commissaries  at  their 
head.  He  appears  unwilling,  but  I  hope  may  be  at  length  persuaded  to  it. 
...  I  have  mentioned  our  late  and  former  losses  of  missionaries  to  the 
King,"   says    Seeker   in   his    concluding  paragraph,   "as   one   argument   for 


ENGLISH  INTEREST  IN  THE  EPISCOPAL    (lUESTION      253 

William  Samuel  Johnson,  at  this  time  agent  for  the  colony  of 
Connecticut  in  England,^  wrote  to  his  father  in  the  summer  of 
1769  expressing  his  pleasure  that  the  episcopal  controversy 
was  nearing  its  close,  and  adding  that  little  attention  was  paid 
to  it  abroad.2  But  the  publication  of  Seeker's  Letter  in  this 
year,  and  the  discussion  which  it  stirred  up,  together  with  the 
contributions  in  the  London  Chroniele  relative  to  this  and  the 
"  American  Whig "  controversy,  contradict  Johnson's  asser- 
tion.^ Moreover,  the  continual  pleas  of  the  Anglican  bishops 
in  the  annual  sermons  before  the  Society  tended  to  keep  alive 
an  interest  in  the  subject.* 

Bishops.  He  is  thoroughly  sensible  that  the  Episcopalians  are  his  best 
friends  in  America.  .  .  .  Nor  do  I  think  there  is  any  considerable  increase 
of  vehemence  against  Episcopacy  here.  Declaimers  in  newspapers  are  not 
much  to  be  minded ;  nor  a  few  hot-headed  men  of  higher  rank."  (For  the 
full  letter,  see  Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  302-304,  and  Chandler,  Life  of  John- 
son, Appendix,  198-200;  for  extracts,  Wzm^Vyo.'s,,  Missions,  393-394).  Seeker's 
closing  burst  of  optimism  does  not,  however,  relieve  the  current  of  pessimism 
which  pervades  the  letter.  Bishop  Lowth,  in  a  letter  to  Johnson,  May  3,  1768, 
is  equally  discouraging:  "As  to  the  great  and  important  design  of  an  Amer- 
ican Episcopate,"  he  writes,  "  I  see  no  immediate  prospect  of  its  being  carried 
into  execution.  While  the  state  of  affairs,  both  with  us  and  with  you,  con- 
tinues just  as  it  now  is,  I  am  afraid  we  may  not  expect  much  to  be  done  in 
it"  (Chandler,  Life  of  Johnson,  Appendix,  201-203;  extracts  in  Beardsley, 
Life  of  Johnson,  326). 

1  He  held  this  office  from  1766  to  1771. 

2  Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  326.  Johnson  was  continually  writing  letters 
with  a  view  to  dampen  his  father's  enthusiasm.  See,  for  example,  his  reply 
to  a  letter  from  his  father,  dated  June  8,  1767,  in  which  he  says:  "I  doubt 
not  Lord  Shelburne  said  as  you  have  been  told.  [Shelburne  was  then  secre- 
tary of  state  for  the  southern  department,  and  was  in  control  of  the  entire 
colonial  administration ;  he  is  reported  to  have  said  that  there  was  no  need  of 
an  American  episcopate.]  I  wish  he  was  the  only  one  amongst  the  ministers 
of  that  opinion.  I  fear  it  is  universal,  and  the  common  sentiment  of  all  the 
leaders  of  all  parties,  and  that,  perhaps,  of  all  others  in  which  they  are  most 
agreed.  The  '  appeal '  you  mention  [Chandler's  Appeal  to  the  Public,  which 
Johnson's  father  had  proposed  sending  him  as  soon  as  it  was  printed,  in  the 
hope  that  it  might  convince  Shelburne  of  his  error],  however  well  drawn  up, 
will,  I  fear,  have  very  little  effect.  Perhaps  the  more  you  stir  about  this  mat- 
ter at  present,  the  worse  it  will  be"  (Beardsley,  Life  of  Johnson,  315-316). 

^  The  subject  is  treated  in  detail  in  chapter  viii.  above. 
*  Some  of  them  are  enumerated  above,  pp.  191-192. 


254     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION: 

In  spite  of  the  discouragements  under  which  the  clergy  in 
America  labored,  and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  hostility  of 
the  dissenters  and  the  indifference  of  the  home  government 
were  becoming  more  and  more  marked,  they  continued  with 
unabated  zeal  their  petitions  to  the  authorities  in  England,  both 
civil  and  ecclesiastical.^  As  the  purpose  of  the  colonists  to 
separate  from  the  mother  country  became  more  and  more 
evident,  the  American  Episcopal  clergy  sought  to  make  use  of 
the  situation  to  secure  the  great  end  at  which  they  had  been  so 
long  aiming.  We  have  already  noted,  in  the  correspondence^ 
of  Johnson  and  the  polemical  writings  of  Chandler,  how  the 
monarchical  tendency  of  the  episcopal  system  was  emphasized 
and  contrasted  with  the  republican  character  of  independency. 
'  Going  a  step  farther,  some  of  the  later  petitions,  which  were 
directed  to  the  English  officers  of  state,  strove  to  prove  that 
the  settlement  of  bishops  in  the  colonies  would  be  one  way,  if 
not  the  only  way,  to  save  them  from  revolt.^^    For  example,  in 

^  For  example,  May  29,  1771,  the  "voluntary  convention"  of  the  clergy  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  Connecticut  petitioned  to  the  Bishop  of  London 
and  to  the  king  through  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  They  also  asked  the 
support  of  the  Archbishop  of  York,  the  Board  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  Lord 
Hillsborough,  Lord  North,  the  Bishop  of  Oxford,  and  the  Bishop  of  Lichfield 
(Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Cluirch  Docufnents,  ii.  176-177;  Beardsley, 
Episcopal  Church  in  Contiecticut,  i.  282-283).  One  extract  from  the  petition 
to  the  Bishop  of  London  is  interesting  for  the  curious  threat  which  it  conveys. 
The  words  are  as  follows  :  "  Must  it  not  be  surprising,  and  really  unaccount- 
able, that  this  Church  should  be  denied  the  Episcopate  she  asks,  which  is  so 
necessary  to  her  well  being  .  .  .  ?  Must  not  such  a  disregard  of  the  Church 
here  be  a  great  discouragement  to  her  sons  ?  Will  it  not  prevent  the  growth 
of  the  Church,  and  thereby  operate  to  the  disadvantage  of  religion  and  loyalty? 
These,  may  it  please  your  Lordship,  not  to  mention  the  burthens  we  feel,  are 
the  evils  we  fear,  should  our  request  be  denied.  Should  our  application  be 
judged  unreasonable,  we  doubt  not  it  will  be  remembered  that  necessity  has 
no  law"  (Hawks  and  Perry,  Comiecticut  Church  Docutnents,  ii.  177).  These 
utterances  are  in  striking  contrast  to  all  the  other  professions  of  the  pro- 
episcopal  party,  and  indeed  to  its  acts ;  for  its  members  were  among  the 
king's  most  loyal  subjects,  both  before  and  after  the  date  of  this  writing. 
I  2  Compare   also    the    following  paragraph,  written   in    1764,   probably   by 

'     Archbishop  Drummond  (see  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collcc- 
■     tions,  i.  136,  note  i)  :  "It  must  be  owned  that  the  probable  consequence  [of 
the  establishment  of  a  colonial  episcopate]  will  be  the  increase  of  the  Church 


POLITICAL  ARGUMENTS  OF  THE  EPISCOPAL  PARTY.     255 

an  "  Address  of  a  Committee  of  the  Clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  "  to  the  colonial  secre- 
tary, Lord  Hillsborough,  we  find  the  following  view :  "  The 
members  of  the  national  Church  are  from  Principle  and  Inclina- 
tion, firmly  attached  to  the  Constitution.  From  them  it  must 
ever  derive  its  surest  support.  We  need  not  enter  into  a  formal 
Proof  of  this,  as  the  Reasons  are  sufficiently  obvious.  Omitting 
all  other  Arguments,  that  might  be  adduced,  let  past  Experience 
decide.  Independency  in  Religion  will  naturally  produce  Repub- 
licans in  the  State ;  and  from  their  Principles,  too  prevalent  al- 
ready, the  greatest  Evils  may  justly  be  apprehended.  The  Church 
must  inevitably  decrease  in  the  Colonies,  if  bishops  are  not  sent 
to  relieve  its  Necessities ;  and  the  Dissenters  will  in  Time  gain 
an  entire  Ascendancy.  How  far  it  may  be  consistent  with  good 
Policy  and  the  Safety  of  the  State  to  permit  this,  we  are  will- 
ing that  your  Lordship  should  determine."  ^  But  the  English 
officers  of  state,  if  they  considered  this  argument  at  all,  saw 
the  fallacy  of  it,  saw  that  in  the  situation  in  which  they  were 
placed  further  to  disregard  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  colo-j 
nists  was  not  the  way  to  hold  them  in  submission.  Unwise  in  1^ 
other  respects,  they  were  wise  in  this.^  ^ 

This  seems  to  be  at  least  a  plausible  explanation  of  the  dis- 
inclination on  the  part  of  the  home  government  to  meddle  in' 
r-  the  affair  of  an  American  episcopate.      Many  will  say  that  its 
'  apathy  was  due  to  indifference.     But  in  1750  (the  only  date  on  \ 
which,  so  far  as  we  have  found,  there  was  any  complete  expres- 

of  England  in  America  when  the  present  disorder  of  it  is  removed ;    but  it  j 
should   be  considered  that   the  Civil  Government   here   [in   England]    may  I 
receive   great   support  there  from  such  increase,  and  that  it  is  no  less  im- 
portant, even  as  a  matter  of  State,  that  Ecclesiastics  should   be  able   to  do 
good,  than  that  they  should  not  be  able  to  do  harm  "  ("  Thoughts  upon  the 
Present  State  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America,"  Ibid.  162). 

^  New  York,  October  12,  1771,  New  Jersey  Archives,  x.  309-313.  "By 
order  of  the  clergy  "  it  was  signed  by  the  following  committee  of  four :  Sam- 
uel Auchmuty,  Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler,  John  Ogilvie,  and  Charles  Inglis, 
and  was  taken  to  England  by  Dr.  Myles  Cooper,  president  of  King's  College, 
New  York  City. 

^  As  a  public  newspaper  writer  truly  said,  "  There  are  dissentions  enough 
already  in  America.  Our  governors  want  not  to  increase,  but  to  pacify  them  " 
(^London  Chronicle.,  February  6,  1769). 


256     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION. 

sion  of  opinion  from  the  ministry  on  the  subject)  the  govern- 
ment was  far  from  indifferent ;  on  the  contrary,  it  entertained 
grave  apprehensions  of  the  consequences  which  such  a  step 
would  involve,  and  made  strenuous  efforts  to  keep  the  question 
out  of  public  politics.^  In  this  it  was,  for  the  time  being,  suc- 
cessful. When  the  question  came  up  again,  more  than  a  decade 
later,  new  circumstances  had  arisen  to  complicate  the  situation. 
The  ministers  must  then  have  considered  the  matter,  even  if  only 
in  a  cursory  way ;  in  fact,  we  have  some  slight  evidence  that 
they  did ;  ^  and  in  letting  it  drop  they  were  probably  actuated 
by  reasons  of  policy.  Undoubtedly  the  great  pressure  brought 
to  bear  on  them  by  the  influential  dissenters  contributed  not  a 
little  to  this  result ;  for  enough  has  already  been  said  about  the 
storm  which  the  bare  apprehension  of  an  American  episcopate 
raised  both  in  the  colonies  and  in  England,^  to  show  that  the 
opponents  of  the  plan  did  not  confine  themselves  to  mere  idle 
raging,  but  made  systematic  efforts  through  such  of  the  English 
dissenters  as  had  the  ear  of  the  government,  to  prevent  the 
latter  from  giving  any  aid  or  countenance  to  the  project.*  It 
was  to  this  interference  that  the  leaders  among  the  pro-episco- 
pal party  attributed  their  defeat.^ 

1  See  above,  p.  ii6ff.  For  the  correspondence  in  full,  see  below,  Appendix 
A,  No.  xi. 

2  For  example,  March  30,  1 767,  in  reply  to  an  invitation  from  the  Duke  of 
Newcastle  to  call  at  Newcastle  House,  Archbishop  Seeker  writes,  "  I  am 
engaged  by  Appointment  to  talk  with  Lord  Shelburne  about  the  wonderful 
State  of  our  ecclesiastical  Affairs  in  America,  at  half  an  Hour  after  Eleven 
on  Wednesday'"  {Newcastle  Papers,  Home  Series,  32980,  f.  444). 

3  See  above,  chs.  vi.  vii.  viii.  One  other  striking  instance,  coming  from  an 
extreme  Southern  colony,  may  be  added.  Mr.  Martyn,  writing  to  the  Bishop  of 
London  from  South  Carolina,  October  20,  1765,  says,  "  If  I  may  form  a  Judg- 
ment from  that  present  prevailing  turbulent  Spirit  which  like  an  epidemick 
disorder  seems  everywhere  to  diffuse  itself  through  this  and  the  other  Colo- 
nies, I  can  venture  to  affirm  that  it  would  be  as  unsafe  for  an  American  Bishop 
(if  such  should  be  appointed)  to  come  hither,  as  it  is  at  present  for  a  Distrib- 
utor of  the  Stamps"  (^Fulham  AfSS.). 

*  See  above,  ch.  x.  Cf  Bishop  William  White,  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  50. 

^  See,  for  example,  Johnson  to  Camm :  "We  have  been  informed  from 
home  that  our  adversaries,  who  seem  to  have  much  influence  with  the  ministry, 
endeavor,  and  with  too  much  success,  to  make  it  believed  that  nineteen  twen- 


THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  ENGLISH  GOVERN'MENT.      257 

In  view  of  these  facts,  English  statesmen  saw  that  they  had 
nothing  to  gain  and  everything  to  lose  by  involving  themselves 
in  the  episcopal  question.  They  knew  that  bishops  with  purely 
spiritual  functions  settled  here  would  avail  them  little,  and  would 
arouse  fully  as  much  odium  as  an  out-and-out  state  establish- 
ment ;  and,  moreover,  that  the  dreaded  state  establishment  would 
be  resisted  in  the  colonies,  not  only  by  the  Puritans,  but  by  the 
major  part  of  the  Episcopalians  themselves.^     Some  writers,  as 

tieths  of  America  are  utterly  against  receiving  Bishops,  and  that  sending  them, 
though  only  with  spiritual  powers,  would  cause  more  dangerous  disturbances 
than  the  Stamp-act  itself;  insomuch  that  our  most  excellent  Archbishop,  who 
has  been  much  engaged  in  this  great  atTair,  .  .  .  has  lately  informed  me  that 
he  has  not  been  able  to  gain  the  attention  of  the  ministry  to  it,  though  his 
Majesty  is  very  kindly  disposed  to  favor  and  promote  it "  (Beardsley,  Life  of 
Johnson,  324-325).  In  one  of  his  many  letters  to  Johnson,  Seeker  said: 
"  We  must  wait  for  more  favorable  times,  which  I  think  it  will  contribute  not 
a  little  to  bring  in,  if  the  ministers  of  our  Church  in  America,  by  friendly  con- 
verse with  the  principal  dissenters,  can  satisfy  them  that  nothing  more  is  in- 
tended or  desired  than  that  our  church  may  enjoy  the  full  benefit  of  its  own 
institutions,  as  all  others  do.  For  so  long  as  they  are  uneasy  and  remon- 
strate, regard  will  be  paid  to  them  and  their  friends  here  by  our  ministers 
of  state "  (Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  146,  note 
3).  The  following  testimony  is  from  one  of  the  leading  advocates  for  an 
American  episcopate :  "  From  him  I  first  learned  the  true  reason  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  being  opposed  and  defeated  in  his  scheme  of  sending  us 
bishops.  .  It  seems  that  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  Mr.  Pelham,  and  Mr.  Onslow 
can  have  the  interest  and  votes  of  the  whole  body  of  the  dissenters  upon  con- 
dition of  their  befriending  them,  and  by  their  influence  on  those  persons  the 
ministry  was  brought  to  oppose  it"  (Chandler  to  Johnson,  Ibid.).  May  19, 
1 766,  the  Reverend  Hugh  Neill  of  Oxford  wrote  an  interesting  letter  on  the 
same  subject  (see  the  Society's  Digest,  35). 

^  William  Samuel  Johnson,  in  reply  to  a  letter  from  Governor  Trumbull 
asking  what  had  been  done  in  England  as  to  American  bishops,  expresses  the 
sentiments  of  many  of  his  fellow-believers.  "It  is  not  intended,  at  present," 
he  says,  "  to  send  any  Bishops  into  the  American  colonies ;  had  it  been,  I 
certainly  should  have  acquainted  you  with  it.  And  should  it  be  done  at  all, 
you  may  be  assured  it  will  be  done  in  such  a  manner  as  in  no  degree  to  preju- 
dice, nor,  if  possible,  even  give  the  least  offence  to  any  denomination  of  Prot- 
estants. It  has  indeed  been  merely  a  religious,  in  no  respect  a  political, 
scheme.  .  .  .  More  than  this  would  be  thought  rather  disadvantageous  than 
beneficial,  and  I  assure  yon  uuottld  be  opposed  by  tto  tnan  with  viore  zeal  than 
myself  evett  as  a  friend  to  the  Church  of  England.  Nay,  I  have  the  strongest 
grounds  to  assure  you  that  more  would  not  be  accepted  by  those  who  under- 

17 


258     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION. 

we  have  seen,  maintained  that  native  bishops  would  have  created  . 
a  bond  of  union  between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country/ 
which  might  have  averted  the  war  for  independence ;  but  such: 
a  theory  is  untenable,  and  was  so  regarded  by  those  in  author- 
ity at  that  time.  Though  episcopacy,  once  estabUshed,  might 
have  strengthened  the  arm  of  the  Enghsh  executive  here,  yet 
the  advantages  did  not  seem  alluring  enough  to  tempt  it. 
*  Hence,  owing  to  the  cautiousness  of  the  Englishmen  who  had 
control  of  affairs,  the  introduction  of  bishops  was  not  one  of  the 
final  causes  of  separation  from  the  mother  country,  though  the 
apprehension  that  such  a  danger  excited  in  the  colonies  formed 
a  striking,  and  not  unimportant,  phase  of  the  struggle  which 
led  to  that  consummation. 

Before  concluding  this  chapter  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  notice 
a  few  scattered  facts  concerning  the  relations  of  the  Bishop  of 
London,  or  his  representatives,  with  particular  colonies.^ 

The  little  authority  which  Roger  Price  exercised  as  commis- 
sary of  New  England  ceased  with  the  expiration  of  his  com- 
mission at  the  death  of  Bishop  Gibson,  and  from  this  time  the 
Episcopal  churches  of  the  province  remained  without  any 
'  resident  authoritative  head.  In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  i 
clergy,^  no  attempt  was  made  to  supply  the  vacancy. 

Finally,  the  clergy,  realizing  that  they  could  obtain  no  help 
from  the  authorities  at  home,  determined  to  take  the  matter  into 
their  own  hands.  Accordingly,  while  assembled  at  Dr.  Cutler's 
funeral  in  1765,  they  agreed  to  have  "an  annual  convention  in 
Boston,  to  promote  mutual  love  and  harmony  amongst  ourselves, 
and  to  assist  each  other  with  advice  in  difficult  cases."     Their 

stand  and  wish  well  to  the  design,  were  it  even  offered  "  (Beardsley,  Episcopal 
Church  in  Connecticut.,  i.  265-266) . 

1  Owing  to  the  points  of  more  general  interest  involved,  the  relations  with 
North  Carolina  were  considered  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter. 

^  See,  for  example,  Henry  Caner  to  Archbishop  Seeker,  January  7,  1763, 
"We  are  a  Rope  of  Sand,"  he  says ;  "there  is  no  union,  no  authority  among 
us ;  we  cannot  even  summon  a  Convention  for  united  Counsell  and  advice, 
while  the  Dissenting  Ministers  have  their  Monthly,  Quarterly,  and  Annual 
Associations,  Conventions,  &c.,  to  advise,  assist,  and  support  each  other  in 
many  Measures  which  they  shall  think  proper  to  enter  into  "  (Perry,  Historical 
Collections.,  iii.  Massachusetts,  489-491). 


CHURCH  AFFAIRS  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


259 


first  meeting  took  place  June  i,  1766.  Dr.  Caner,  who  was 
chosen  moderator  and  secretary,  delivered  an  address  in  Kino-'s 
Chapel,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he  informed  his  assem- 
bled brethren  that  their  convention  had  the  approval  of  the 
Bishop  of  London.  Following  the  service  was  a  dinner,  at 
which  the  governor  was  present.  "We  .  .  .  made  something 
of  an  appearance  for  this  Country,"  says  Dr.  William  McGil- 
christ  in  his  account,  "when  we  walked  together  in  our  Gowns 
and  Cassocks."  ^  These  meetings,  which  were  held  annually 
for  some  years,  served  to  make  the  clergy  acquainted  with  one 
another,  if  they  did  nothing  more. 

The  rest  of  the  history  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  Massachu- 
setts during  this  period  has  to  do  mainly  with  the  opposition  to 
the  establishment  of  an  American  episcopate.  Indications  of  this 
resistance  are  found  not  only  in  the  share  which  the  people  of 
the  province  took  in  the  pamphlet  and  newspaper  wars  already 

■y  described,  but  also  in  the  action  of  the  public  authorities.  One 
example  of  such  official  action  has  been  seen  in  the  letter  sent, 
January  12,  1768,  by  the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representa- 
tives to  its  agent  in  London,  Dennis  de  Berdt,  requesting  that 
he  would  "  strenuously  oppose "  the  introduction  of   bishops.^ 

*  Throughout  these  years  there  were  many  evidences  of  such 
forebodings,  expressed  both  officially  and  unofficially.'^'  When 
the  British  evacuated  Boston,  March  17,  1776,  most  of  the 
Episcopal  clergy  in  Massachusetts  left  the  colony,  and  those 
who  remained  were  forced,  at  least  seemingly,  to  go  over  to  the 

^Letter  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society.  June  27,  1766  (Vtrry,  Historical 
Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts)  524). 

"  See  above,  p.  235,  note  2,  where  an  extract  from  the  letter  is  cited. 

3  For  example,  Dr.  Andrew  Eliot  wrote  to  Thomas  Hollis  in  London, 
January  5.  1768,  "■  The  people  of -New  England  are  greatly  alarmed ;  the  arrival 
of  a  Bishop  would  raise  them  as  much  as  any  one  thing"  (Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  iv.  422;  Mellen  Chamberlain, /(?//« 
Adams,  31).  ''Again,  in  1772,  the  Boston  Committee  of  Correspondence,  in  a 
report  made  in  Faneuil  Hall  on  the  rights  of  the  colonists,  said,  "  Various 
attempts  .  .  .  have  been  made,  and  are  now  made,  to  establish  an  American 
Episcopate,"  adding  as  its  opinion  that  "  no  power  on  earth  can  justly  give 
either  temporal  or  spiritual  jurisdiction  within  this  province,  except  the  great 
and  general  court  "  (J.  W.  Thornton,  Pulpit  of  the  American  Revolution,  192  ; 
Chamberlain,  _/(?//«  Adams,  31). 


26o     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION: 

patriotic  side.  In  the  following  year  an  act  was  passed  "  for- 
bidding all  expressions  in  preaching  and  praying  that  may 
discountenance  the  people's  support  of  the  independency  of 
these  colonies  on  the  British  Empire  on  the  Penalty  of  ;^5o."  ^ 
From  this  time  to  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  the  Episcopal 
Church  plays  no  important  role  in  New  England  history. 

At  the  time  when  the  opposition  to  an  American  episcopate 
was  at  its  height,  an  interesting  project  was  devised  by  the  royal 
governor  of  New  Hampshire  for  establishing  the  Church  of 
England  in  his  province.  His  scheme  is  thus  outlined  in  a 
letter  to  a  friend :  "  My  dear  Sir,  I  cordially  venerate  the 
Church  of  England  and  hope  to  see  it  universal  in  this  Prov- 
ince, whose  lasting  welfare  I  have  much  and  sincerely  at  heart. 
Whatever  is  done  in  this  proposed  Plan  must  be  without  parade 
or  Show  and  under  powerful  Direction,  or  the  whole  Matter  will 
be  injured  rather  than  served  ;  and  I  should  think  that  if  the 
Bishop  of  London  should  wish  well  to  this  Scheme,  from  being 
convinced  of  its  utility  and  speedy  practibility.  His  Lordship 
could  represent  it  to  His  Majesty  so  effectually  as  to  obtain  the 
Chaplainship,^  which  would  be  so  eminently  advantageous  to 
the  cause  of  our  Religion,  and  exceedingly  dignify  and  facilitate 
the  Political  Administration  of  the  Government,  both  of  them 
you  are  sensible.  Sir,  at  this  Time  requiring  all  the  care  and 
prudence  they  can  have."  ^  Although  this  plan  was  never  car- 
ried out,  it  is  interesting  as  another  indication  of  the  close  con- 
nection which  existed  in  the  minds  of  many  people  at  that  time 
between  episcopal  and  monarchical  forms  of  government. 

In  the  various  colonies,  many  questions  of  ordinary  church 
administration,  as  they  came  up  for  solution,  were,  as  hereto- 
fore, referred  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Bishop  of 
London,  and  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel ;  but 
throughout  the  country  the  clergy  were  complaining  of  the  lack 

1  From  an  address  by  the  Reverend  William  Clark  to  his  congregation  at 
Dedham,  March,  1777.  See  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iii.  (Massachusetts) 
591-592. 

'^  The  governor  regarded  a  royal  chaplain  as  necessary  for  the  furtherance 
of  his  project. 

2  Governor  John  Wentworth  to  Joseph  Harrison,  September  24,  1769, 
Fidhani  MSS. 


THE  EPISCOPAL   QUESTION-  IN  MARYLAND.  26 1 

of  efficient  organization  of  ecclesiastical  government.  Most  of 
these  complaints,  however,  came  from  the  Northern  and  Middle 
colonies,  where  the  remedy  almost  invariably  suggested  was  the 
settlement  of  resident  bishops.  In  the  Southern  colonies,  on 
the  other  hand,  at  least  in  Virginia  and  Maryland,  there  was,  if 
not  a  general,  at  least  a  very  decided,  opposition  to  such  an 
establishment.      The   course   of   events   in    Virginia   has   been 

-  described  at  some  length  in  a  previous  chapter.  An  attempt  to 
introduce  bishops  into  Maryland  called  up  a  Hke  resistance. 
When  eight  of  the  clergy  drew  up  a  petition  to  be  presented  to 
the  governor,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Bishop  of 
London,  and  Lord  Baltimore,  the  governor  intervened,  refusing 
to  accept  the  petition  as  the  act  of  the  whole  body  of  clergy  in 
the  province.  He  informed  the  petitioners,  however,  that  in 
view  of  the  many  and  important  considerations  involved,  he 
would  lay  the  matter  before  the  House  of  Representatives. 
This  was  hardly  welcome  news  to  the  authors  of  the  petition,  for 
the  reason  that  they  had  alluded  to  the  legislative  body  in  rather 
unflattering  terms.  After  some  deliberation  the  governor  and 
assembly  refused  to  consent  to  the  sending  of  the  petition  to 

»  England ;  but  in  spite  of  this  prohibition  it  was  sent,^  and  as  a 
result  Lord  Baltimore  instructed  Governor  Eden  to  prevent  the 
clergy  from  assembling  thenceforth  on  any  occasion  whatever(^ 
As  heretofore  in  this  province,  there  continued  to  be  many 
complaints  of  the  bad  character  of  the  clergy  and  of  the  en- 
croachments and  tyranny  of  the  proprietary,  who  claimed  the 
sole  right  of  patronage  and  often  caused  clergymen  unpleasant 
to  the  people  to  be  inducted.^  With  a  view  to  amending  and 
regulating  the  conduct  of  the  clergy,  the  assembly  drafted  an 

1  Compare  a  letter  from  the  "  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  from  the  Associations  of  Connecticut "  to  the 
"Dissenting  committee"  of  London,  Minutes  of  the  Convention,  32-34. 

-  Hawks  {Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  ii.  Maryland,  256)  gives  the  date  of 
their  petition  as  1770;  but  either  the  petition  was  earlier  or  the  prohibition 
of  Lord  Baltimore  was  not,  as  Hawks  conjectures,  in  consequence  thereof,  for 
the  Reverend  T.  J.  Claggett,  writing  September  20,  1769,  speaks  of  the  prohi- 
bition as  already  issued  (see  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  iv.  Maryland,  340- 

341)- 

3  See  Chandler  to  Bishop  Terrick,  October  21,  1767,  Ibid.  334-335. 


262     FROM  SHERLOCK'S  DEATH  TO   THE  REVOLUTION. 

act  providing  "That  after  such  a  day  the  Governor,  3  Clergy- 
men, &  3  Laymen  should  be  constituted  a  spiritual  court. 
That  any  Clergy  man  that  was  guilty  of  any  acts  or  act  of  im- 
morality, or  should  be  30  days  absent  from  his  Parish  at  one 
time,  should  be  suspended  from  preaching  and  be  deprived  of 

*  his  living."  Though  no  one  disputed  the  need  of  some  means 
of  regulating  the  lives  of  irregular  clergymen,  the  clerical  order, 
as  a  whole,  become  alarmed  at  the  prospect  of  such  a  presby- 
terian  form  of  government  with  lay  elders,  and,  moreover,  con- 
sidered it  subversive  of  the  canons  of  the  church,  which  gave  to 

•  the  bishop  alone  power  to  pass  sentence  in  such  cases.  Hence 
they  raised  a  strong  opposition  to  the  measure,  and,  though  the 
bill  passed  the  upper  and  lower  house  of  assembly,  Governor 
Sharpe  refused  to  sign  it,  alleging  that  he  had  no  instructions 
authorizing  him  in  such  a  case.^  This  was  apparently  the  last 
attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Maryland  assembly,  before  the  Revo- 
lution, to  assume  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  eccle- 
siastical concerns. 

'  Little  more  remains  to  be  said.  Ecclesiastical  questions  lost 
their  significance  as  those  of  a  civil  nature  became  more  press- 
ing. The  agitation  kept  growing,  till  the  colonists  secured 
what  for  a  period  of  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
they  had  been  striving  to  attain,  independence  in  all  relations, 
religious  as  well  as  secular.  The  treaty  of  1783,  which  acknowl- 
edged the  United  States  as  a  sovereign  and  independent  nation, 
put  an  end  to  all  ofificial  connection  between  the  Church  of 
England  establishment  and  her  trans-Atlantic  offspring.  If  the 
Episcopal  Church  was  to  continue  to  exist  in  the  new  nation, 
it  must,  like  all  other  institutions  of  the  land,  be  self-governing. 
If  it  was  to  have  bishops,  it  must  have  them  independent  of  all 
foreign  control. 

^  See  the  Reverend  Hugh  Neill  to  Bishop  Terrick,  September  20,  1768,  in 
Perry,  Historical  Collections.,  iv.  (Maryland)  337-338.  Neill  urges  the  bishop 
to  obtain  some  instruction  to  prevent  in  the  future  any  such  encroachment  on 
the  integrity  of  the  establishment.  The  story  is  told  also  in  an  anonymous 
letter,  and  in  one  from  the  Reverend  T.  J.  Claggett  to  Bishop  Terrick, 
September  20,  1769  (^Ibid.  339-341). 


CHAPTER   XII. 

AFTER   THE   REVOLUTION:   THE   ESTABLISHMENT   OF  AN 
AMERICAN   EPISCOPATE.i 

One  result  of  the  American  Revolution  was  to  break  off  all 
authoritative  connection  between  the  Church  of  England  estab- 
lishment and  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  to  abolish 
the  colonial  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  to  put 
an  end  to  any  further  prospect  of  obtaining  from  the  English 
government  the  settlement  of  an  American  colonial  episco- 
pate as  a  branch  of  the  Anglican  hierarchy.  Apparently,  the 
last  instance  in  which  the  Bishop  of  London,  as  such,  was 
identified  with  the  Episcopal  Church  here  was  an  act,  passed 
in  1784,  "to  impower  the  Bishop  of  London  for  the  time  being, 
or  any  other  bishop  to  be  by  him  appointed,  to  admit  to  the 
order  of  deacon  or  priest,  persons  being  subjects  or  citizens  of 
countries  out  of  his  Majesty's  dominions,  without  requiring 
them  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  as  appointed  by  law."  2 
This  act  was  passed  as  an  expedient  to  get  over  a  very  obvious 
difficulty  brought  about  by  the  changed  relations  between  the 
two  countries.  Early  in  the  year  two  candidates  from  the 
United  States  had  gone  to  England  for  holy  orders,  and  had 
been  refused  because,  as  American  citizens,  they  could  not  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  British  crown.  In  their  perplexity 
they  appealed  to  their  influential  countryman,  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin, then  in  Paris.  Although  willing,  he  hardly  knew  how  to 
help  them,  as  he  showed  by  going  first  to  the  French  bishops, 

1  The  account  of  the  events  treated  of  in  this  chapter  is  drawn  chiefly  from 
the  unpublished  letter  books  of  Bishops  Seabury,  White,  and  Parker,  most  of 
which  are  either  printed  or  cited  in  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church 
Documents,  ii.  210  ff.  The  story  is  also  told  in  Beardsley,  Life  of  Seabury,, 
chs.  xi.-xxi.  and  in  his  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut,  i.  ch.  xxvi.  fF. 

^  Statute  24  George  III.  c.  35. 


264  AFTER   THE  REVOLUTION: 

and  finally  to  the  pope's  nuncio.^  As  a  temporary  shift,  the 
passage  of  the  above-named  act  was  secured,  but  it  was  of 
necessity  only  an  expedient  for  the  time  being  until  a  more 
satisfactory  plan  could  be  devised.  Its  chief  defect  was  that  it 
made  no  provision  for  the  consecration  of  American  bishops ; 
and  plainly,  if  the  American  Episcopal  Church  was  to  grow, 
there  must  be  resident  bishops  vested  with  authority  to  ordain, 
confirm,  and  administer  ecclesiastical  affairs.  The  United  States 
of  America  could  have  no  place  for  a  church  which  was  not 
essentially  American  in  its  government  and  tendencies.  How 
to  continue  the  traditions  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  meet  this  end,  was  the  problem  upon  the  settle- 
ment of  which  the  church's  future  here  was  dependent.  Mean- 
while, a  plan  had  been  set  on  foot  which  aimed  to  solve  the 
difficulty,  and  it  will  be  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  trace 
the  inception,  progress,  and  final  success  of  that  plan. 

The  first  step  toward  obtaining  bishops  for  America  was 
taken  in  1783,  when  the  ten  missionaries  of  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel,  still  remaining  in  Connecticut,  as- 
sembled, and  chose  the  Reverend  Samuel  Seabury  to  go  to 
England  for  episcopal  consecration.^  Into  all  the  negotiations 
concerning  Seabury,  which  went  on  between  the  New  York 
and  Connecticut  clergy  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Archbishop  of 
York^  on  the  other,  and  into  all  Seabury's  conferences  with 
the  Archbishops  of  York  and  Canterbury,  and  the  Bishop  of 
London,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  enter  here.*  Suffice  it  to 
say  that,  failing  to  accomplish  anything  in  England,  Seabury 

1  Hawkins,  Missions  of  the  Chitrch  of  England,  402-403,  citing  Hoare, 
Memoirs  of  Graiiville  Sharp,  215. 

^  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Documettts,  ii.  211.  The  details 
of  the  proceedings  may  be  found  in  the  letters  of  the  Reverend  Daniel  Fogg, 
rector  of  Pomfret,  Connecticut,  to  the  Reverend  Samuel  Parker  of  Boston, 
Ibid.  212-213,  citing  Bishop  Parker's  correspondence. 

2  Who  acted  as  primate  during  a  brief  vacancy  of  the  see  of  Canterbury. 
*  They  are  considered  at  length  in  the  Churchman''s  Magazine  (1806),  iii. 

and  in  Hawks  and  Perry,  fournals  of  the  General  Conventions  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  1 785-1 853,  i. ;  also  in  Bishop  White's  Metnoirs  (Appendix 
and  illustrative  documents) .  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  sources,  see  Hawks 
and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Documents,  ii. 


SEABURY  CONSECRATED  BY  THE  NON-JURORS.        265 

turned  at  last  to  the  Scotch  non-juring  bishops  for  aid.^  This 
idea  did  not  originate  with  him,  or,  indeed,  with  any  American, 
but  with  an  Englishman ;  for  the  subject  was  first  broached  by 
Dr.  George  Berkeley,  son  of  the  famous  Bishop  of  Cloyne,  in 
a  letter  to  the  Reverend  John  Skinner,  later  coadjutor  to  the 
non-juring  primus  of  Scotland.  Skinner  finally  gave  his  ap- 
proval to  the  plan,  and  soon  after  gained  the  acquiescence  of 
his  superior.  With  the  ice  thus  broken,  Seabury's  request  for 
consecration  was  readily  granted,  and  on  November  14,  1784, 
the  ceremony  was  performed  by  Robert  Kilgour,  primus  and 
Bishop  of  Aberdeen,  John  Skinner,  his  coadjutor,  and  Arthur 
Petrie,  Bishop  of  Ross  and  Moray.^ 

Seabury's  reasons  for  applying  for  the  Scottish  consecration 
are  stated  at  length  by  him  in  a  letter  of  February  27,  1785,  to 
the  Reverend  Dr.  William  Morice,  secretary  of  the  Society. 
"  Finding,"  he  says,  "  at  the  end  of  the  last  Session  of  Parlia- 
ment that  no  permission  was  given  for  consecrating  a  Bishop 
for  Connecticutt  or  any  of  the  American  States,  in  the  Act 
enabling  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  to  ordain  foreign  candi- 
dates for  Deacon's  or  Priest's  orders ;  and  understanding  that  a 
requisition  or  at  least  a  formal  acquiescence  of  Congress,  or 
of  the  supreme  authority  in  some  particular  State,  would  be 
expected  before  such  permission  would  be  granted  ;  and  that  a 
diocese  must  be  formed,  and  a  stated  revenue  appointed  for  the 
Bishop,  previously  to  his  consecration,  I  absolutely  despaired 
of  ever  seeing  such  a  measure  succeed  in  England.  .  .  .  The 
reasons  why  this  step  [his  consecration]  should  be  taken  imme- 
diately," he  continues,  "  appeared  ...  to  me  to  be  very  strong. 

^  An  account  of  the  negotiations  with  the  Scottish  bishops  may  be  found 
in  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Documents,  ii.  239-240,  and  Wilber- 
force,  Protestant  Episcopal  Chtirch,  199-212. 

^  See  Hawks  and  Perry,  Confiecticut  Church  Dociitnents,  ii.  247-252,  citing 
Scottish  Ecclesiastical  Journal,  October  16,  1851,  which  quotes  from  the 
"  Minute  Book  of  the  College  of  Bishops  in  Scotland,"  where  may  be  found 
the  original  records  of  the  consecration,  together  with  the  concordat  between 
the  Episcopal  churches  of  Scotland  and  Connecticut,  and  the  letter  from  the 
Scottish  bishops  to  the  Connecticut  clergy.  For  Seabury's  own  account  of 
the  consecration,  see  in  his  letter  book  a  letter  of  December  3,  1784,  to  the 
Reverend  Jonathan  Boucher. 


266  AFTER   THE  REVOLUTION: 

Before  I  left  America  a  disposition  to  run  into  irregular  prac- 
tices had  showed  itself ;  for  some  had  proposed  to  apply  to  the 
Moravian,  some  to  the  Swedish  Bishops,  for  ordination ;  and  a 
pamphlet  had  been  published  at  Philadelphia  urging  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  number  of  Presbyters  and  Laymen  to  ordain  Ministers 
for  the  Episcopal  Church.  Necessity  was  pleaded  as  the  foun- 
dation of  all  these  schemes ;  and  this  plea  could  be  effectually 
silenced  only  by  having  a  resident  Bishop  in  America."  ^ 

There  is  no  need  to  consider  all  the  opposition  which  Bishop 
Seabury  had  to  encounter  on  his  return  to  his  native  land.  It 
will  be  sufficient  to  point  out  that,  owing  to  the  influence  of  the 
Reverend  Samuel  Provoost  of  New  York,  who,  as  an  ardent 
patriot,  could  not  but  oppose  by  every  means  in  his  power  the 
loyalist  Seabury,  an  alienation  had  grown  up  between  the 
Episcopal  clergy  of  New  England  and  those  of  the  Middle 
and  Southern  states.  The  former  recognized  Seabury  as 
bishop,  and  hence  the  validity  of  the  Scottish  succession  ;  ^  the 
latter,  rejecting  both,  sought  to  obtain  a  bishop  through  the 
English  line,  as  well  as  a  revision  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.^  Finally  the  English  government  was  prevailed  upon 
to  grant  to  its  American  brethren  in  the  faith  the  Anglican 
Episcopal  succession.  To  this  end  an  act  was  passed  by  Par- 
liament authorizing  either  of  the  two  archbishops,  together  with 
such  of  the  bishops  as  they  might  desire  to  call  as  their  assist- 
ants, to  consecrate  bishops  for  America.* 

As  soon  as  the  news  reached  this  country,  Dr.  Samuel  Pro- 
voost of  New  York  and  Dr.  William   White  of  Pennsylvania 

1  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Docutnents,  ii.  256-259. 

2  This  matter  of  orders  was  regarded  as  a  crucial  question  on  both  sides  of 
the  water.  October  29,  1785,  nearly  a  year  after  Seabury's  consecration, 
Granville  Sharp,  in  a  letter  to  Benjamin  Franklin,  expressed  his  doubts  as  to 
the  validity  of  orders  derived  through  non-juring  bishops,  and  his  preference 
for  a  consecration  by  English  bishops.  This,  he  thought,  might  be  secured 
if  the  candidates  would  bring  the  proper  testimonials.  See  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Collectiotis,  ist  Series,  iii.  162-164. 

^  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Documents,  ii.  292-293. 

^Statute  26  George  III.  (1786),  c.  84.  See  Makower,  Constitutional  His- 
tory and  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  England,  142.  Cf.  the  Reverend  Ben- 
jamin Moore  to  the  Reverend  Samuel  Parker,  New  York,  November  4,  1786, 
in  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connect icict  Church  Documents,  ii.  305. 


THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  ESTABLISHED.     267 

went  to  England,^  where  they  were  consecrated,  February  4, 
1787,  by  John  Moore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  William 
Markham,  Archbishop  of  York,  Charles  Moss,  Bishop  of  Bath 
and  Wells,  and  John  Hinchchffe,  Bishop  of  Peterborough.^ 
Some  two  years  after  their  return  to  America  the  differences 
existing  between  them  and  Bishop  Seabury,  and  hence  those 
of  their  respective  followings  in  the  churches  of  the  Middle  and 
Southern  States,  and  of  New  England  were  amicably  adjusted; 
and  Bishop  Seabury  was  invited  to  attend  the  "  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States," 
which  opened  at  Philadelphia,  September  29,  1789.  Three  bish- 
ops, the  number  required  by  the  canons  of  the  Anglican  church 
for  the  perpetuation  of  its  holy  orders,  had  now  been  obtained ; 
and  the  House  of  Bishops  was  finally  organized,  with  Bishop 
Seabury  as  its  first  president.^ 

With  the  establishment  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  under  the  supervision  of  its  own 

^  See  Hawks  and  Perry,  Comiecticut  Church  Documents,  ii.  305. 

2  Perceval,  Apostolical  Succession,  Appendix,  121.  For  an  account  of  the 
consecration  of  Provoost  and  White,  see  the  fourth  in  a  series  of  articles  from 
the  Episcopal  Magazine,  printed  in  the  Pennsylvania  Register  (June  27,  1829), 
iii.  405-406.  The  series  is  entitled  "  A  Narrative  of  the  Organization  and  of 
the  Early  Measures  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States." 

^  Hawks  and  Perry,  Connecticut  Church  Docnntents,  ii.  359.  On  September 
19,  1790,  James  Madison  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  Virginia  by  John  Moore, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Beilby  Porteus,  Bishop  of  London,  and  John 
Thomas,  Bishop  of  Rochester  (Perceval,  Apostolic  Succession,  121).  This 
gave  the  United  States  three  bishops  according  to  the  EngHsh  succession,  a 
sufficient  number  to  consecrate  any  one  who  should  question  the  validity  of 
the  Scottish  line.  About  this  time,  however,  the  English  church  restored  the 
Scottish  non-juring  bishops  to  their  position  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Anglican 
hierarchy. 

One  cause  of  regret  in  the  formation  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  was  the  refusal  of  the  Methodists  to  join  in  its  organization. 
Their  secession  from  the  Church  of  England  system  began  in  1784,  when 
Lowth,  then  Bishop  of  London,  refused  Wesley's  request  to  ordain  at  least  two 
priests  to  administer  the  sacrament  to  the  American  Methodists.  Coke  and 
Asbury,  whom  Wesley,  in  spite  of  Lowth,  sent  out  as  "  superintendents," 
assumed  the  fimctions  of  bishops,  and  laid  the  foundations  upon  which  the 
structure  now  known  as  the  American  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was 
reared.  See  McConnell,  American  Episcopal  Church,  1 70-1 71,  citing  Abel 
Stevens,  History  of  American  Methodism. 


268  AFTER   THE  REVOLUTION: 

bishops,  the  connection  of  the  Bishop  of  London  with  this  coun- 
try ceased.  Likewise,  all  attempts  to  establish  resident  bishops 
subject  to  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  England  came  to  an 
end.  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  say  a  word  or  two,  by  way 
of  conclusion,  concerning  these  two  lines  of  development  as 
treated  in  the  preceding  chapters.  The  first  may  be  dismissed 
with  a  brief  summary.  Originating,  probably,  with  a  step 
instigated  by  Laud  in  the  rounding  out  of  the  Stuart-Laudian 
/^■'"~\  policy  of  uniting  church  and  state,  the  Bishop  of  London's 
( '  \\  colonial  authority,  in  America  at  least,  faded  into  oblivion  dur- 
ing the  Commonwealth  and  the  Protectorate.  Reviving  again 
with  the  Restoration,  under  the  energetic  administration  of 
Henry  Compton,  it  obtained  a  direct  legal  recognition  during 
the  lifetime  of  Bishop  Gibson,  under  whom  it  reached  its  high- 
est development.  Receiving  a  blow  from  Bishop  Sherlock  from 
which  it  never  recovered,  it  nevertheless  did  not  become  com- 
pletely extinct  until  the  close  of  the  Revolution. 

As  regards  the  second  point,  almost  from  the  time  when  the 
authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  was  extended  to  include  the 
plantations,  efforts  were  made  to  introduce  a  native  episcopate 
to  take  over  his  American  jurisdiction.  This  plan  was  pushed 
with  more  or  less  constancy  from  its  inception  in  the  days  of 
Laud  to  the  outbreak  of  the  War  of  Independence.  At  first  it 
was  a  matter  of  purely  spiritual  concern,  but  with  the  beginning 
of  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  became  almost 
inextricably  involved  in  the  pohtical  history  of  the  period.  There 
are  innumerable  evidences  of  the  public  interest  which  the  ques- 
tion excited  during  the  years  just  preceding  the  Revolution. 
'  7  One  may  point,  for  example,  to  the  newspaper  controversy  of 
/  1 768-1 769;  to  the  active  part  which  such  prominent  men  as 
William  Livingston,  John  Dickinson,  and  Roger  Sherman  took 
in  the  agitation  ;  and,  finally,  to  the  fact  that  John  Adams,  while 
not  concerned  in  the  affair  at  the  time,  expressed,  later  in  life, 
a  firm  conviction  of  the  importance  of  the  episcopal  question  in 
the  final  epoch  of  our  colonial  history. 
«  In  view  of  these  facts,  some  writers  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
argue  that  the  attempt  to  impose  Anglican  bishops  on  the  colo- 
nies had  an  important  effect  in  bringing  about  the  separation 


MELLEN  CHAMBERLAIN'S  THEORY.  269 

t  from  Great  Britain.  This  theory  has  been  most  strongly  advo- 
cated by  Mellen  Chamberlain,  in  an  address  on  John  Adams 
delivered  before  the  Webster  Historical  Society. ^  One  or  two 
of   the  extracts  which  he  cites  in  support  of    his  opinion  are 

'  worthy  of  consideration.  The  first  is  from  the  Reverend  Jona- 
than  Boucher's    View  of  the   Causes  and  Conseqitences  of  the 

'  American  Revolution,  published  in  London  in  1797.  Boucher 
says :  "  That  the  American  opposition  to  episcopacy  was  at  all 
connected  with  that  still  more  serious  one  so  soon  afterwards 
set  up  against  civil  government  was  not  indeed  generally  appar- 
ent at  the  time  [in  Virginia]  ;  but  it  is  now  [1797]  indisputable, 
as  it  also  is  that  the  former  contributed  not  a  little  to  render  the 
latter  successful.  As  therefore  this  controversy  was  clearly  one 
great  cause  that  led  to  the  revolution,  the  view  of  it  here  given, 

''  it  is  hoped,  will  not  be  deemed  wholly  uninteresting.  "^  Another 
significant  quotation  is  from  the  letter  of  John  Adams  to  Dr. 
Jedidiah  Morse,  written  December  2,  18 15.'  "Where,"  he  asks, 
"  is  the  man  to  be  found  at  this  day,  when  we  see  Methodistical 
bishops,  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  bishops,  arch- 
bishops, and  Jesuits  of  the  church  of  Rome,  with  indifference, 

•  who  will  believe  that  the  apprehension  of  Episcopacy  contributed 
fifty  years  ago  as  much  as  any  other  cause,  to  arouse  the  atten- 
tion, not  only  of  the  inquiring  mind,  but  of  the  common  people, 
and  urge  them  to  close  thinking  on  the  constitutional  authority 
of  parliament  over  the  colonies  .-*  This,  nevertheless,  was  a  fact 
as  certain  as  any  in  the  history  of  North  America.  The  objec- 
tion was  not  merely  to  the  office  of  a  bishop,  though  even  that 
was  dreaded,  but  to  the  authority  of  parliament,  on  which  it 
must  be  founded  ...  if  parliament  can  erect  dioceses  and 
appoint  bishops,  they  may  introduce  the  whole  hierarchy,  estab- 
lish tithes,  forbid  marriages  and  funerals,  establish  religions,  for- 
bid dissenters."  ^    These  references,  supplemented  by  additional 


^Afterward  reprinted  in  \\\?,Jo]in  Adams  and  Other  Essays  {\i 
2  View,  150;  quoted  by  Chamberlain  {John  Adams')  37,  and,  among  others, 
by  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  425,  note  4. 

^John  Adams,  Works,  y..  185;  quoted  by  Chamberlain, /<?/;«  Adams,  25, 
note.  In  the  same  note,  Chamberlain  quotes  an  earlier  utterance  of  Adams 
irovn  Novanglus,  February  13,  1775  :  "  It  is  true  that  the  people  of  this  country 


2JO  AFTER   THE  REVOLUTION: 

citations,  have  also  been  made  use  of  by  at  least  two  other 
writers,^  neither  of  whom,  however,  has  drawn  such  definite  and 
far-reaching  conclusions  from  them  as  Chamberlain  has.  An- 
other writer,  without  giving  any  authority  for  his  statement, 
says :  "  The  necessities  of  the  Church,  no  less  than  those  of  the 
State,  demanded  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  freedom 
from  the  Mother  Country.  Religious  freedom  was  to  come  as 
the  result  of  political  independence.  Its  progress  was  slow 
before  the  Revolution  .  .  ,  But  had  the  New  England  colo- 
nies granted  entire  toleration,  the  Church  of  England  would 
have  been  fastened  upon  them.  To  prevent  this  was  one 
of  the  underlying  reasons  for  the  Declaration  of  July  4, 
I776."2 

Undoubtedly,  there  is  something  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the 
argument  that  the  attempt  to  introduce  bishops,  and  the  opposi- 
tion thereby  excited,  formed  one  of  the  causes  of  the  Revolution. 
/  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  opposition  to  bishops  was  based 
mainly  on  political  grounds  :  this  fact  is  indicated  by  the  ab- 
sence of  any  resistance  to  the  establishment  of  an  episcopate 
after  the  Revolution.^     Moreover,  fear  and  hatred  of  the  Church 

in  general,  and  of  this  province  in  special,  have  an  hereditary  apprehension  of 
and  aversion  to  lordships,  temporal  and  spiritual.  Their  ancestors  fled  to  this 
wilderness  to  avoid  them ;  they  suffered  sufficiently  under  them  in  England. 
And  there  are  few  of  the  present  generation  who  have  not  been  warned  of 
the  danger  of  them  by  their  fathers  or  grandfathers,  and  enjoined  to  oppose 
them." 

1  See  Perry,  American  Episcopal  Chttrch^  i.  425,  where  he  cites  the  extract 
from  Boucher,  and  also  that  from  Adams,  taking  it  from  Morse's  Annals,  197- 
203.  These  references  are  also  used  in  the  ''  General  Remarks  "  of  the  editors 
of  the  Minutes  of  the  Convention  of  Delegates  (Hartford,  1843),  Appendix,  64. 
The  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  in  its  Digest.  747,  advocates  the 
same  view  as  the  authors  mentioned  above,  and  refers  for  authority  to  Perry, 
American  Episcopal  Church,  i.  408,  410,  425,  and  to  Chandler,  Lifeoffohnson, 
177.  An  interesting  citation  may  be  found  in  Perry,  A7nerican  Episcopal 
Church,  i.  412,  from  a  speech  by  Lord  Chatham.  "Divided  as  they  are,"  he 
says,  "  into  a  thousand  forms  of  policy  "and  religion,  there  is  one  point  on 
which  they  all  agree :  they  equally  detest  the  pageantry  of  a  king,  and  the 
supercilious  hypocracy  of  a  bishop." 

-  H.  B.  Smith,  History  of  the  Chjirch  of  Christ,  in  Chrojiological  Tables.  70. 

^  "  The  sudden  collapse  of  all  such  opposition  after  the  Revolution  had  dis- 
severed the  colonies  from  the  motherland  shows  that  the  poiDular  objection  to 


conclusion:  271 

of  England  and  all  its  appendages  were  existent  in  the  colonies 
from  their  first  foundation ;  and  the  fact  that  the  majority  of 
the  colonists  professed  a  religion  hostile,  or  at  least  alien,  to  the 
Anglican   establishment   offered   good    ground   for   nourishing 

» the  seeds  of  political  discontent.  But,  admitting  all  this,  it 
must  be  apparent  to  one  who  has  followed  carefully  the  course 
of  events,  religious  and  political,  during  the  eighteenth  century, 
that  the  strained  relations  which  heralded  the  approach  of  the 
War  of  Independence  strengthened  the  opposition  to  episcopacy, 
rather  than  that   religious  differences    were   a   prime    moving 

'  cause  of  political  alienation.  The  religious  controversies,  ac- 
centuated and  drawn  into  more  public  prominence,  though 
not  first  called  into  being,  by  the  existing  political  situation, 
had  a  reactionary  effect,  in  that,  once  in  full  swing,  they 
contributed,  in  combination  with  other  causes,  to  embitter 
the  minds  of  the  patriots  and  thus  to  accelerate  the  impend- 
ing crisis.^ 

Those,  then,  who  argue  that  the  episcopal  question  was  a 
cause  of  the  Revolution,  if  they  mean  an  impelling  cause,  are 
exposed  to  the  criticism  of  misconstruing  evidence  and  of  con- 


the  introduction  of  bishops  was  chiefly  political  "  (Tiffany,  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Churchy  277).  Or,  to  quote  one  who  lived  almost  in  the  midst  of  the 
events  which  he  described,  and  who  was  hostile  to  the  Church  of  England: 
"  The  friends  of  the  Episcopate,  notwithstanding  all  the  zeal  and  exertions 
which  they  employed  in  its  behalf,  were  continually  disappointed  by  difficul- 
ties and  delay,  until  the  Revolution;  which,  by  establishing  the  Independence 
of  the  United  States,  effectually  precluded  the  dangers  apprehended  from 
their  scheme,  removed  the  fears  of  their  opponents,  and  terminated  the  con- 
troversy "  (Miller,  Monoirs  of  John  Rodger s,  i86). 

1  Sir  William  Johnson,  writing  to  the  Society,  December  lo,  1768,  doubts 
the  reality  of  the  fear  concerning  the  introduction  of  bishops.  "  We  cannot 
have  a  clergy  here,"  he  says,  "  without  an  Episcopate ;  and  this  want  has  oc- 
casioned many  to  embrace  other  persuasions,  and  will  oblige  greater  numbers 
to  follow  their  example,  of  which  the  dissenters  are  very  sensible ;  and  by  pre- 
tended fears  of  an  episcopal  power,  as  well  as  by  magnifying  their  own  num- 
bers and  lessening  ours,  give  it  all  possible  opposition"  (cited  in  Perry, 
A}nerican  Episcopal  Church,  i.  418).  This  view,  even  if  true,  does  not 
change  the  aspect  of  the  question  in  the  least ;  for  the  important  and  essential 
thing  is,  not  so  much  what  actuated  the  dissenters  in  their  opposition  to  epis- 
copacy, but  the  fact  that  they  were  really  opposed  to  it. 


2/2  AFTER   THE  REVOLUTION. 

fusing  cause  and  effect.  Nevertheless,  religious  affairs  were 
closely  involved  in  the  political  questions  of  the  time,  and  if 
the  ecclesiastical  causes  of  the  Revolution  were  secondary  and 
contributory  rather  than  primary  and  impelling,  certainly  there 
was  an  ecclesiastical  phase  of  pre-Revolutionary  history  of  no 
little  interest  and  importance. 


APPENDICES. 


APPENDIX  A. 

ILLUSTRATIVE    DOCUMENTS. 

The  majority  of  these  documents  are  transcripts  of  manuscripts  in  the  Fulham 
Library,  the  British  Museum,  and  the  Public  Record  Office,  London.  The  remainder 
have  already  been  printed,  but  are  included  here  for  the  purpose  of  supplementing 
and  elucidating  the  text. 

L  ORDER  OF  THE  KING  IN  COUNCIL  VESTING  THE  JURIS- 
DICTION OF  THE  CHURCHES  OF  DELPH  AND  HAMBURGH 
IN   THE   BISHOP   OF   LONDON. 

P.  R.  O.,  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  Charles  I.,  No.  247  for  October 
1-15,  1633. 

At  Whitehall  y*  first  of  October  1633. 

Present. 

The  King  Most  Excellent  Ma"."» 
Lo  Arch  Bpp  of  Cant.  Ea  of  Dorset 

Lo  Keeper  Ea  of  Bridgewater 

Lo  Tresor  Ea  of  Holland 

Lo  Privy  Seal  Ea  of  Kelley 

Lo  Marq'  Hamilton  Lo  Cottington 

Lo  Chamblain  Mr  Jus.  Ml"  Sec.  Coke 

Mr  Sec.  Windebank 

This  day  his  Ma''^  being  present  in  Councell  the  pticuls  following  con- 
cerning y*  Company  of  Merchant  Adventurers  and  their  Government  in 
forreigne  parts  were  fully  debated  at  y*  Board  vizt 

1 .  The  Scandell  and  prejudice  arising  by  supporting  &  using  a  form 
of  discipline  in  their  Church  at  Delph ;  —  different  from  that  of  their 
mother  Church  here,  of  which  they  are  members. 

2.  Their  opposing  and  rejecting  of  Mr.  Misselden  their  Deputy 
Governor  there. 

18 


274  APPENDIX  A. 

3.  The  removing  and  translating  of  y^  principall  power  and  Govern- 
ment of  y''  said  Trade  from  those  forreigne  parts  and  estabhshing  y'^  same 
here. 

For  y^  first  which  concerns  their  Church  Government.  It  was  agreed 
upon  y®  voluntary  Assent  and  Submission  of  said  Company,  not  only  of 
those  here  but  of  some  authorized  on  y^  behalf  of  those  at  Delph  and 
Hamburgh  now  present  before  y"  Board  and  upon  other  important 
reasons  and  considerations  resolved  &  ordered  that  they  should  not 
hereafter  receive  or  admit  of  any  Minister  into  the  said  Churches  in 
forreigne  parts  without  his  Ma"''^  knowledge  and  approbation  of  the 
person  :  And  that  y*  Liturgy  and  Discipline  now  used  in  y^  Church  of 
England  should  be  receaved  and  established  there,  And  that  in  all  things 
concerning  their  Church  Government  they  should  be  under  y^  Jurisdic- 
tion of  y^  Lord  Bpp  of  London  as  their  Diocesan.  For  y''  orderly  doing 
whereof  Mr  Attorney  General  is  hereby  prayed  and  required  to  advise 
and  direct  such  a  cours  as  may  be  most  essentiall.  .  . 

n.    COMMISSION   FOR   REGULATING   PLANTATIONS.  — 1634. 

'S)Y3idioYd,  History  of  Pfyfuouth  Plantatwn  (Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  4th  Series,  iii.  456-460).  For  an  account  of  the  various  texts  of 
this  commission,  see  above,  p.  19,  note  i. 

Charles  by  y®  grace  of  God  king  of  England,  Scotland,  France, 
and  Ireland,  Defender  of  y''  Faith,  &c. 

To  the  most  Reve*^  father  in  Christ,  our  wellbeloved  &  faithful  coun- 
sellour,  William,  by  devine  providence  Archbishop  of  Counterbery,  of  all 
England  Primate  &  Metropolitan ;  Thomas  Lord  Coventry,  Keeper  of 
our  Great  Scale  of  England ;  the  most  Reverente  father  in  Christ  our 
wellbeloved  and  most  faithful  Counselour,  Richard,  by  devine  provi- 
dence Archbishop  of  Yorke,  Primate  &  Metropolitan ;  our  wellbeloved 
and  most  faithfuU  coussens  &  Counselours,  Richard,  Earle  of  Portland, 
our  High  Treasurer  of  England  ;  Henery,  Earle  of  Manchester,  Keeper 
of  our  Privie  Scale ;  Thomas,  Earle  of  Arundalle  &  Surry,  Earle  Mar- 
shall of  England ;  Edward,  Earle  of  Dorsett,  Chamberline  of  our  most 
dear  Consorte,  the  Queene  ;  and  our  beloved  &  faithfull  Counselours, 
Francis  Lord  Cottington,  Counseler,  [Chancellor?]  and  Undertreasurour 
of  our  Eschequour ;  S'' :  Thomas  Edmonds,  knight,  Treasourer  of  our 
household  ;  S'' :  Henery  Vane,  Knight,  Controuler  of  y*  same  household  ; 
S' :  John  Cooke,  Knight,  one  of  our  Privie  Secretaries ;  and  Francis 
Windebanck,  Knight,  another  of  our  Privie  Secretaries,  Greeting. 


COMMISSION  FOR  REGULATING  PLANTATIONS,   1634.     275 

Whereas  very  many  of  our  subjects,  &  of  our  late  fathers  of  beloved 
memory,  our  sovereigne  lord  James,  late  King  of  England,  by  means  of 
license  royall,  not  only  with  desire  of  inlarging  y*  teritories  of  our  em- 
pire, but  cheefly  out  of  a  pius  &  religious  affection,  &  desire  of  propa- 
gating y^  gospell  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  great  Industrie  &  expences 
have  caused  to  be  planted  large  Collonies  of  y^  English  nation,  in  diverse 
parts  of  y^  world  alltogether  unmanured,  and  voyd  of  inhabitants,  or 
occupied  of  y*'  barbarous  people  that  have  no  knowledg  of  divine  wor- 
ship. We  being  willing  to  provid  a  remedy  for  y^  tranquillity  &  quiet- 
ness of  those  people,  and  being  very  confidente  of  your  faith  &  wisdom, 
justice  &  providente  circomspection,  have  constituted  you  y^  aforesaid 
Archbishop  of  Counterberie,  Lord  Keeper  of  y''  Great  Scale  of  England, 
y^  Archbishop  of  Yorke,  &c.  and  any  5.  or  more,  of  you,  our  Commis- 
sioners ;  and  to  you,  and  any  5.  or  more  of  you,  we  doe  give  and  comite 
power  for  y^  govemente  &  saftie  of  y^  said  collonies,  drawen  or  which, 
out  of  y*  English  nation  into  those  parts  hereafter,  shall  be  drawne,  to 
make  lawes,  constitutions,  &  ordinances,  pertaining  ether  to  y"*  publick 
state  of  these  collonies,  or  y®  private  profite  of  them ;  and  concerning 
y^  lands,  goods,  debts,  &  succession  in  those  parts,  and  how  they  shall 
demaine  themselves,  towards  foraigne  princes,  and  their  people,  or  how 
they  shall  bear  them  selves  towards  us,  and  our  subjects,  as  well  in  any 
foraine  parts  whatsoever,  or  on  y^  seas  in  those  parts,  or  in  their  returne 
sayling  home ;  or  which  may  pertaine  to  y*  clergie  governmente,  or  to 
y^  cure  of  soules,  among  y^  people  ther  living,  and  exercising  trad  in 
those  parts ;  by  designing  out  congruente  porcions  arising  in  tithes, 
oblations,  &  other  things  ther,  according  to  your  sound  discretions,  in 
politicall  &  civill  causes;  and  by  haveing  y^  advise  of  2.  or  3.  bishops, 
for  y®  setling,  making,  &  ordering  of  y*  bussines,  for  y^  designeing  of 
necessary  ecclesiasticall,  and  clargie  porcions,  which  you  shall  cause  to 
be  called,  and  taken  to  you.  And  to  make  provision  against  y'^  viola- 
tion of  those  laws,  constitutions,  and  ordinances,  by  imposing  penealties 
&  mulcts,  imprisonmente  if  ther  be  cause,  and  y'  y'^  quality  of  y^  offense 
doe  require  it,  by  deprivation  of  member,  or  life  to  be  inflicted.  With 
power  allso  (our  assente  being  had)  to  remove,  &  displace  y"  governours 
or  rulers  of  those  collonies,  for  causes  which  shall  seeme  to  you  lawfull, 
and  others  in  their  stead  to  constitute  ;  and  require  an  accouute  of 
their  rule  &  governement,  and  whom  you  shall  finde  culpable,  either  by 
deprivation  from  their  place,  or  by  imposition  of  a  mulcte  upon  y*  goods 
of  them  in  those  parts  to  be  levied,  or  banishmente  from  those  provinces 
in  w^*"  they  have  been  gove''  or  otherwise  to  cashier  according  to  y*"  quan- 


2/6  APPENDIX  A. 

tity  of  y*  offense.  And  to  constitute  judges  &  magistrats  politicall  & 
civill,  for  civill  causes  and  under  y^  power  and  forme,  which  to  you  5.  or 
more  of  you  shall  seeme  expediente.  And  judges  &  magistrats  &  dig- 
nities, to  causes  Ecclesiasticall,  and  under  y*  power  &  forme,  whiche 
to  you  5.  or  more  of  you,  with  the  bishops  viceregents  (provided  by 
Y  Archbishop  of  Counterbure  for  y^  time  being),  shall  seeme  expediente  ; 
and  to  ordaine  courts,  pretoriane  and  tribunall,  as  well  ecclesiasticall,  as 
civill,  of  judgementes  ;  to  detirmine  of  y*  formes  and  maner  of  proceed- 
ings in  y*  same  ;  and  of  appealing  from  them  in  matters  &  causes  as 
well  criminall,  as  civill,  personall,  reale,  and  mixte,  and  to  the  seats  of 
justice,  what  may  be  equall  &  well  ordered,  and  what  crimes,  faults,  or 
exesses,  of  contracts  or  injuries  ought  to  belonge  to  y^  Ecclesiasticall 
courte,  and  what  to  y®  civill  courte,  and  seate  of  justice. 

Provided  never  y^  less,  y'  the  laws,  ordinances,  &  constitutions  of  this 
kinde,  shall  not  be  put  in  execution,  before  our  assent  be  had  therunto 
in  writing  under  our  signet,  signed  at  least,  and  this  assente  being  had, 
and  y^  same  publikly  proclaimed  in  y®  provinces  in  which  they  are  to  be 
executed,  we  will  &  comand  y'  those  lawes,  ordinances,  and  constitu- 
tions more  fully  to  obtaine  strength  and  be  observed  shall  be  inviolably 
of  all  men  whom  they  shall  concerne. 

Notwithstanding  it  shall  be  for  you,  or  any  5.  or  more  of  you,  (as  is 
afiforesaid,)  allthough  those  lawes,  constitutions,  and  ordinances  shalbe 
proclaimed  with  our  royall  assente,  to  chainge,  revocke,  &  abrogate 
them,  and  other  new  ones,  in  forme  afiforesaid,  from  time  to  time  frame 
and  make  as  afforesaid  ;  and  to  new  evills  arissing,  or  new  dangers,  to 
apply  new  remedyes  as  is  fitting,  so  often  as  to  you  shalle  seem  expe- 
diente. Furthermore  you  shall  understand  that  we  have  constituted 
you,  and  every  5.  or  more  of  you,  the  afforesaid  Archbishop  of  Counter- 
burie,  Thomas  Lord  Coventrie,  Keeper  of  y*"  Great  Scale  of  England, 
Richard,  Bishop  of  Yorke,  Richard,  Earle  of  Portland,  Henery,  Earle  of 
Manchester,  Thomas,  Earle  of  Arundale  &  Surry,  Edward,  Earell  of 
Dorsett,  Francis  Lord  Cottinton,  S''  Thomas  Edmonds,  [Edwards  in  the 
manuscript]  knighte,  S''  Henry  Vane,  knight,  S''  Francis  Windebanke, 
knight,  our  comissioners  to  hear,  &  determine,  according  to  your 
sound  discretions,  all  maner  of  complaints  either  against  those  collonies, 
or  their  rulers,  or  govenours,  at  y^  instance  of  y''  parties  greeved,  or  at 
their  accusation  brought  concerning  injuries  from  hence,  or  from  thence, 
betweene  them,  &  their  members  to  be  moved,  and  to  call  y*  parties 
before  you  ;  and  to  the  parties  or  to  their  procurators,  from  hence,  or 
from  thence  being  heard  y^  full  complemente  of  justice  to  be  exhibited. 


OBSERVATIONS  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  LONDON^   1707.    277 

Giving  unto  you,  or  any  5.  or  more  of  you  power,  y'  if  you  shall  find 
any  of  y^  collonies  afforesaid,  or  any  of  y"  cheefe  rulers  upon  y^  jurisdic- 
tions of  others  by  unjust  possession,  or  usurpation,  or  one  against 
another  making  greevance,  or  in  rebelion  against  us,  or  withdrawing 
from  our  alegance,  our  own  comandments,  not  obeying,  consultation  first 
with  us  in  y'  case  had,  to  cause  those  colonies,  or  y*^  rulers  of  them,  for 
y*  causes  afforesaid,  or  for  other  just  causes  either  to  returne  to  England, 
or  to  comand  them  to  other  places  designed,  even  as  according  to  your 
sounde  discretions  it  shall  seeme  to  stand  with  equitie,  &  justice,  or 
necessitie.  Moreover  we  doe  give  unto  you,  &  any  5.  or  more  of  you, 
power  &  spetiall  comand  over  all  y^  charters,  leters  patents,  and  rescripts 
royall,  of  y"^  regions,  provinces,  ilands,  or  lands  in  foraigne  parts,  granted 
for  raising  colonies,  to  cause  them  to  be  brought  before  you,  &  y"  same 
being  received,  if  any  thing  surrepticiously  or  unduly  have  been  obtained, 
or  y'  by  the  same  priviledges,  liberties,  &  prerogatives  hurtfuU  to  us,  or 
to  our  crowne,  or  to  foraigne  princes,  have  been  prejudicially  suffered, 
or  granted  ;  the  same  being  better  made  knowne  unto  you  5.  or  more  of 
you,  to  comand  them  according  to  y^  laws  and  customs  of  England  to  be 
revoked,  and  to  doe  such  other  things,  which  to  y^  profite  &  safgard  of 
y®  afforesaid  collonies,  and  of  our  subjects  residente  in  y*^  same,  shall  be 
necessary.  And  therfore  we  doe  comand  you  that  aboute  y*^  premisses 
at  days  &  times,  which  for  these  things  you  shall  make  provission,  that 
you  be  diligente  in  attendance,  as  it  becometh  you  ;  giving  in  precepte 
also,  &  firmly  injoyning,  we  doe  give  comand  to  all  and  singuler  cheefe 
rulers  of  provinces  into  which  y®  colonies  afforesaid  have  been  drawne, 
or  shall  be  drawne,  give  atendance  upon  you,  and  be  observante  and 
obediente  unto  your  warrants  in  perill.  In  testimony  wherof,  we  have 
caused  these  our  letters  to  be  made  patente.  Wittness  our  selfe  at 
Westminster  the  28.  day  of  Aprill,  in  y^  tenth  year  of  our  Raigne. 
By  write  from  y*  privie  seale. 

Willies. 
Anno  Dom :    1634. 

III.   OBSERVATIONS  OF  THE   BISHOP    OF    LONDON    REGARD- 
ING  A   SUFFRAGAN   FOR  AMERICA. 

Printed  in  the  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  V.  29,  30,  from  the  Lambeth 
MSS.,  No.  711,  p.  1x8. 

[Dec.  1707] 

The  present  disorders  now  arising  in  some  of  y*  Plantations,  and 
likely  to  increase  to  an  entire  discouragement  of  the  Clergy  already 


2/8  APPENDIX  A. 

there  Established,  doe,  I  presume,  fully  convince  the  necessity  of  having   \ 
a  Bishop  Established  in  those  parts. 

The  only  question  therefore  is,  what  sort  of  Bishop  will  be  most 
proper  first  to  settle  there.  An  absolute  Bishop,  as  that  of  the  Isle  of 
Man,  will  not  be  so  proper,  at  least  to  begin  with,  for  these  reasons. 

1.  It  will  give  a  great  alarm  to  the  several  colonies,  as  it  did  in  K. 
Charles  y''  2*^'  time,  when  there  came  over  Petitions  and  addresses  with 
all  violence  imaginable. 

2.  Because  the  grounds  of  that  opposition  are  generally  still  the  same. 

3.  For  the  true  reason  of  their  averseness  to  a  Bishop,  is  the  great 
apprehension  they  have  of  being  restrained  from  that  Licentiousness 
they  now  too  often  put  in  practice. 

4.  As  in  Virginia  they  seldom  present  a  Minister  to  the  Governor  to 
be  inducted,  but  keep  him  as  a  probationer  all  the  while  he  stays  with 
them,  that  they  may  make  what  Composition  they  please  with  him  for 
his  allowance,  and  it  may  be  give  him  leave  to  make  up  the  rest  by  tak- 
ing care  of  a  Neighboring  Parish. 

5.  Besides,  all  over  the  Plantations  they  frequently  take  other  men's 
wives,  are  guilty  of  Bigamy  and  Incest,  which  they  are  apprehensive 
would  be  more  strictly  inquired  into,  had  they  a  Bishop  to  inspect  over 
them. 

Now  a  Suffragan  would  come  among  them  with  all  necessary  power 
to  restrain  vice  and  keep  good  order,  without  any  noise  or  clamor. 

1.  They  having  already  been  used  to  a  Commissary,  a  Bishop  will 
come  upon  them  then  more  insensibly,  if  he  comes  over  by  the  same 
authority,  and  under  y*  same  Jurisdiction  as  the  others  did. 

2.  Confirmation,  Consecration  of  Churches  and  conferring  Holy 
Orders  are  powers  they  desire  to  have  among  them  ;  and  when  they 
come  in  only  by  the  change  of  a  Title,  it  will  be  cheerfully  received  as  a 
thing  of  their  own  seeking. 

3.  It  will  be  the  safest  way  to  take  at  first  for  a  proof  how  it  will 
take  amongst  them,  and  all  faults  and  defects  may  more  Easily  be  cor- 
rected and  amended  :  because  it  will  not  be  neer  so  troublesome  to 
question  and  remove  a  Suffragan  Bishop  as  another ;  nor  will  his  being 
put  out  of  office  be  neer  so  inconvenient. 

4.  Besides,  the  beginning  of  any  new  Estabhshment  ought  to  be 
carried  on  gradually,  which  will  make  all  steps  Easier  and  in  case  of  dis- 
appointment the  matter  will  not  be  so  grievous. 

This  is  what  occurs  to  me  at  present  of  such  observations  as  I  appre- 
hend proper  to  be  laid  down. 


CORRESPONDENCE  OF  COMMISSARY  GORDON,  1724-1723.     279 

IV.  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  COMMISSARY  GORDON  OF  BARBA- 
DOES  CONCERNING  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  THE  BISHOP 
OF   LONDON    IN    THE   COLONIES. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

I. 

Rev.  Wm.  Gordon  to  Gov.  H.  Worsley  of  the  Barbadoes,  February 
10,  1723/24. 

I  beg  leave  to  acquaint  your  Excellency  that  altho'  I  never  did  my- 
self the  Honour  of  writing  or  applying  to  the  present  Bishop  of  London, 
yet  his  L  :  ship  has  thought  fit  to  send  me  some  circular  Letters,  with  some 
General  Queries,  to  be  answered  by  the  Clergy  of  this  Island ;  as  also  a 
Letter,  and  some  particular  Queries  to  myself,  and  as  I  shall  ever  study 
to  avoid  all  Appearance  of  doing  anything,  in  your  Excellency's  Govern- 
ment ;  without  your  Approbation,  so  I  thought  it  my  Duty  to  Communi- 
cate these  Papers  to  your  Excellency,  and  humbly  pray  your  Excelly 
to  peruse  them,  and  let  me  know,  whether  it  be  your  Excellency's  pleas- 
ure, that  I  should  forward  them  as  his  Lordship  desires,  being  deter- 
min'd  to  take  no  step  without  your  Excellency's  Approbation. 


Gov.  H.  Worsley  of  Barbadoes  in  reply  to  Rev.  Wm.  Gordon. 

February  15,  1723/24. 

From  the  perusal  of  the  Rf  Reverend  Lord  Bishop  of  London's  Let- 
ter to  you,  I  find  his  Lordship  is  of  Opinion  that  there  is  a  great  uncer- 
tainty in  the  ground  and  Extent  of  his  Jurisdiction  in  the  Plantations,  and 
as  I  can't  authorize  any  Jurisdiction  the  Bishop  of  London  may  have  till 
I  know  what  it  is,  I  must  consider  his  Lordships  Letters  and  Queries  to 
you  and  the  rest  of  the  Clergy  of  this  Island,  as  private  Letters  and 
Queries  to  you  and  them,  to  which  I  think  you  ought  all  to  pay  in  your 
private  Capacity,  all  the  honour  and  respect,  that  is  due  to  so  learned,  so 
good,  so  wise,  and  so  great  a  Prelate.  Your  prudent  Conduct  in  this 
Affair  is  very  Commendable  and  praiseworthy. 

3- 

Rev.  Commissary  Gordon  to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

November  3,  1725. 
[Gordon  understands  that  the  successive  Bishops  of  London]  by  an- 
cient right  and  prescription  claimed  Jurisdiction  of  all  the  foreign  plan- 


28o  APPENDrX  A. 

tations.  [He  also  understands  that  Laud  got  a  declaration  of  this  right 
by  an  order  in  Council ;  but  though  he  has  "  searched  the  Council  Books 
from  Queen  Elizabeth  to  King  Charles"  he  has  been  unable  to  find  any 
trace  of  such  an  order. 

After  these  prefatory  remarks  he  continues  as  follows  :] 

If  the  Bishop  of  London's  authority  over  the  Colonies  should  not  be 
so  very  Ancient,  It  is  I  think  pretty  certain  that  they  were  put  under  his 
Care  by  an  Order  in  Council  in  the  Latter  End  of  King  Charles,  or  at 
least  in  the  Beginning  of  King  James  2*?  Reign ;  And,  notwithstanding 
the  Original  Order  is  not  now  to  be  found  in  the  Council  Books,  Yet 
about  the  time  the  Order  is  said  to  be  made  there  is  a  Blank  to  be  seen 
in  the  Council  Books  left  for  Inserting  Something  which  the  Clerks  have 
still  neglected  to  insert,  and  which  was  probably  the  very  Order  want- 
ing ;  and  I  am  of  opinion  that  whoever  has  Mr.  Blathwaite's  Papers, 
who  was  at  that  time  Chief  Acting  Clerk  of  Council,  may  find  the  said 
Original  Order  among  them  — 

That  there  was  such  an  Order  I  am  strongly  induc'd  to  believe  from 
the  following  Reasons. 

i'.'  —  Because  about  that  time  there  was  an  Order  of  Council  made 
for  adding  the  Bishop  of  London  to  the  Lords  Commissioners  for  Trade 
and  Plantations  who  were  then  all  Lords  of  the  Privy  Council. 

2*^'^  Because,  about  the  same  time.  Several  Clauses  were  added  to 
every  Governors  Instructions  and  Authorities,  and  have  ever  since  con- 
tinued, some  of  which  are  in  the  Words  following.  .  } 

This  last  Instruction  [i.e.  that  reserving  to  the  Governor  the  three 
functions  of  licenses  for  marriages,  probate  of  wills,  and  collation  to 
benefices]  or  Authority,  having  these  Words,  which  we  have  Reserved 
&c,  seems  to  refer  to  Something  done  before ;  for  every  Reservation 
necessarily  implies  some  previous  Grant  out  of  which  the  Reservation  is 
made. 

3*?'^  From  the  annexed  Copy  of  a  Letter  from  Bp.  Compton  to 
Lord  Howard  Governor  of  Virginia,  Septr  1685.  Wherein  the  Order  is 
expressly  mentioned,  and  the  Reason  why  the  Power  was  Vested  in  the 
Bishop. 

^thiy  pj-om  two  Orders  of  Council,  Oct  1686  One  Suspending  the 
Bp  of  London  from  his  Diocese,  and  Vesting  the  Exercise  of  his 
authority  in  Commissioners ;  The  other,  in  about  a  week  after,  Suspend- 


^The  two  clauses  about  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  and  licensing 
clergymen;  see  above,  p.  30. 


GORDON  TO    GIBSON,  172^.  28 1 

ing  him  with  the  same  fformaUty  from  his  Authority  in  the  Plantations, 
&  vesting  it  in  the  same  Commissioners. 

These  Reasons,  in  my  Opinion,  are  Sufficient  to  Shew  that  there  was 
a  Standing  Order  of  Council  Vesting  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  of 
the  Colonies,  in  the  Bishop  of  London ;  tho'  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Council  Books ;  But  even  Supposing  there  never  was  any  such  Order, 
it  will  make  but  little  alteration  in  the  Case,  whilst  the  Temporary 
Orders  of  Council  in  every  Governor's  Instructions  and  Authorities 
Subsist  and  continue ;  ffor  as  long  as  they  do,  they  are  of  as  much, 
nay  of  more,  force  than  any  standing  Order  of  Council,  as  being  them- 
selves not  only  Solemn  Orders  of  Council  pass'd  and  establish'd  but 
also  referred  to  and  expressly  enforc'd  by  Letters  Patents  under  the 
Broad  Seal.  The  Instructions,  which  His  Majesty  in  his  Patent  calls 
also  by  the  more  proper  Name  of  Authorities  are  (in  all  Matters 
relating  to  Government,  and  not  otherwise  settled  by  the  English 
Common  or  Statute  Law  before  the  Year  1626,  nor  by  any  Law  made 
in  the  Barbadoes  since)  standing  Laws,  of  the  same  force  with  Acts 
of  Parliament  and  equally  Obligatory. 

'Tis  only  by  Virtue  of  these  Instructions  &  Authorities  that  we 
enjoy  the  Liberty  of  being  admitted  to  Bail  for  all  Crimes  Bailable  by 
the  Laws  of  England ;  and  by  these  the  Judges  think  themselves  well 
warranted  to  proceed  accordingly.  'Tis  by  this  we  have  a  Court  of 
Errors,  and  Liberty  of  appeal  to  his  Majesty  in  Council ;  And  Since, 
by  these,  the  King  orders  that  the  Govern'  give  all  Countenance  & 
Encouragement  as  far  as  conveniently  may  be  to  the  Exercise  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London  excepting  as  before 
excepted,  the  Exercise  thereof  is  well  warranted  by  the  Instructions  & 
Authorities  and  by  the  Commission  under  the  Great  Seal,  by  which 
these  are  expressly  enforc'd. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  Words,  as  far  as  conveniently  may  be 
leave  it  to  the  Governor's  Discretion  whether  he  will  Suffer  a  Com- 
missary to  Act  at  all ;  but  even  in  that  Sense  of  the  Instruction ;  it  will 
Surely  be  Granted  that  where  he  not  only  permits  but  desires  a  Commis- 
sary to  Exercise  his  Power,  there  the  Instruction  is  Sufficient  Warrant 
for  every  Legal  Act  of  his. 

This  Power  only  labours  under  the  Defect  of  being  Alterable  and 
Determinable  at  the  King's  Pleasure,  as  the  Commissions  and  Instruc- 
tions are ;  But  til  the  King  actually  Determines  Alters  or  Revokes  his 
Commission  &  Instructions,  they  are  (with  all  Deference  to  Superior 
Judgments)    in   my  humble   Opinion,  very  Sufficient   to  Warrant   the 


282  APPENDIX  A. 

appointment  of  a  Commissary  to  proceed  in  a  Judicial  manner,  the 
Leave  &  Countenance  of  a  Governor,  and  so  it  was  always  judged  in 
Barbadoes,  and  ever  since  the  foregoing  Authorities  were  inserted 
in  the  Governor's  Commission  &  Instructions,  til  Mr.  Lowther  [a 
clergyman  tried  in  Barbadoes]  questioned  the  Validity  of  the  Bishops 
Authority.  .  . 


Copy  of  a  Letter  from  Henry  LP   Bp.  of  London  to  the  Lord 
Howard  of  Effingham,  Governor  of  Virginia. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library.^ 
My  Lord, 

"  I  read  your  Commands  for  the  Books  and  hope  to  get  an  order 
for  them  Suddenly,  that  1  may  send  them  by  Some  Ship  of  this  Season. 
I  do  most  humbly  thank  your  Ldp  for  the  great  Care  you  have  taken  in 
Settling  the  Church  under  your  Government.  There  is  a  Constant 
Order  of  Council  remaining  with  Mr,  Blaithwaite  that  no  Man  shall 
continue  in  any  Parish  without  Orders,  nor  any  be  received  without  a 
License  under  the  hand  of  the  Bishop  of  London  for  the  time  being, 
and  that  the  Minister  shall  be  always  one  of  the  Vestry.  This  Order 
was  made  four  or  five  years  since,  and  I  make  no  doubt,  among  others, 
you  have  it  in  your  Instructions.  This  King  has  likewise  made  one 
lately  that  except  Licenses  for  marriages,  Probat  of  wills,  &  disposing 
of  the  Parishes,  all  other  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  shall  be  in  the 
Bishop  of  London.  By  Virtue  of  which  you  shall  have  a  Commission 
to  appoint  Ml"  Clayton,  or  whom  else  you  think  most  proper  to  execute 
that  Authority.  One  chief  Reason  why  this  power  is  put  into  me  is 
because  unless  it  comes  originally  from  an  Ecclesiastical  Person  it 
cannot  be  legally  executed ;  And  I  beseech  Do  not  think  I  would 
proceed  in  this  or  anything  else  without  putting  it  into  Your  Ldp's 
hands  and  leaving  it  wholly  to  your  Disposal.  I  would  likewise  beg  of 
you  to  let  W.  Clayton  know  that  to  go  farther  would  be  very  unreason- 
able at  this  time  which  may  serve  for  an  Answer  to  his  Letter,  But  as 
soon  as  it  shall  be  proper  to  move  in  that  Business  be  sure  to  hear 
from  [me.] 

1  The  copy  in  the  Fulham  MSS.  is  undated.  Gordon,  in  his  letter  to  Gibson, 
see  above,  p.  280,  puts  it  September,  1685. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  THE   WEEKLY  MISCELLANY.       283 

5- 

Order  in  Council  suspending  Bishop  Compton  from  the  Exercise 
OF  HIS  Jurisdiction  in  the  Colonies.^ 

"At  the  Court,  Whitehall,  October  27  1686. 
"The  King  in  Council. 

Whereas  His  Majesty  has  thought  fitt  to  appoint  Commissioners  for 
exercising  the  Episcopal  Jurisdiction  within  the  City  &  Diocese  of 
London,  His  Majesty  in  Council  does  this  Day  Declare  his  pleasure 
that  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the  Plantations  shall  be  exercised 
by  the  said  Commissioners ;  and  did  order  &  it  is  hereby  ordered  that 
the  R-  Honble  the  Lords  of  the  Cominn  for  Trade  &  Plantations  do 
prepare  Instructions  for  the  Several  Governors  in  the  Plantations 
accordingly. 

V.   GIBSON'S   COMMISSION   AND   RELATIVE  PAPERS. 

I. 

Extracts  from  the  Weekly  Miscellany."^ 

Of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  the  Foreign  Planta- 
tions. 

[Bishop  Gibson  applied  for  a  Commission  from  the  King  because  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  over  the  colonies  was]  beyond  the  limits  of 
his  own  Diocese ;  the  Plantations  being  no  part  of  the  Diocese  of  Lon- 
don, nor  the  Ecclesiastical  Affairs  thereof  under  his  Care,  any  otherwise 
than  by  special  Authority  from  the  King,  who,  if  he  please,  may  as  well 
authorize  any  other  Bishop  for  that  Purpose.  .  . 

To  satisfy  himself  in  this  Point,  he  examined  all  the  Council-Books 
of  the  Reign  of  King  Charles  the  Second,  Page  by  Page,  but  did  not 
find  any  such  Order  of  Council,  either  enter'd  there,  or  remaining  in  the 
Council-Office.      And  he  was  moreover  informed  by  very  able  Lawyers, 

^  Referred  to  by  Commissary  Gordon  in  his  letter  to  Bp.  Gibson,  see  above, 
pp.   280-281. 

2  This  periodical  is  very  rare,  the  only  file  I  have  seen  being  that  in  the  British 
Museum.  These  extracts,  from  Vol.  I,  No.  11,  pp.  79-86,  are  valuable  as  giving  a 
practically  contemporaneous  account  of  the  opinions  concerning  the  scope  of  the 
Bishop  of  London's  colonial  jurisdiction  and  of  Gibson's  efforts  to  place  it  on  a 
definite  footing.  The  full  title  is  Weekly  Miscellany,  Giving  an  Account  of  the  Re- 
ligion, Morality,  and  learning  of  the  Present  Times.  Ed.  Richard  Hooker,  Esq. 
London,  2  vols.  1 736-1 738. 


284  APPENDIX  A. 

that  such  an  Order,  though  it  should  be  found,  would  not  warrant  the 
Bishop  to  grant  Commissions  to  others,  unless  he  himself  should  be  first 
empowered  so  to  do  by  a  Commission  firom  the  King  under  the  great 
seal,  the  Plantations  being  not  part  of  any  Diocese,  but  remaining  under 
the  sole  and  immediate  Jurisdiction  of  the  King ;  and  that  Jurisdiction 
not  to  be  legally  delegated,  but  under  the  Great  Seal.  .  . 

And  because  the  Bishop  forsaw,  and  was  inform'd.  That  the  exercise 
of  an  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Body  of  the  Laity  in  the 
Plantations,  might  occasion  great  Uneasiness,  and  perhaps  publick  Dis- 
turbance, he  humbly  proposed  to  his  Majesty  in  Council,  that  the  Com- 
mission under  the  Great  Seal,  if  thought  proper  to  be  granted,  might 
extend  only  to  the  Clergy,  and  to  such  other  Persons  and  Matters  as 
Concern'd  the  Repair  of  Churches,  and  the  decent  Performance  of 
Divine  service  therein  :  Which  was  approv'd,  and  Commission  accord- 
ingly ordered  and  issued. 

After  this,  the  Bishop  presented  a  second  Petition  to  his  late 
Majesty,  relating  to  the  Correction  and  Reformation  of  the  Lives  and 
Manners  of  the  Laity,  in  the  several  Governments  of  the  Plantations. 
According  to  the  Prayer  of  which  Petition,  his  Majesty  was  graciously 
pleased  to  order  in  Council,  That  an  additional  Instruction  should  be 
sent  to  the  several  Governors,  of  the  following  Tenor : 

*  His  Majesty  having  had  under  his  Royal  Consideration,  a  Petition 
from  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God  Edmund  Lord  Bishop  of 
London,  humbly  beseeching  him  to  send  Instructions  to  the  Gov- 
ernors of  all  the  several  Plantations  in  America,  that  they  cause  all 
Laws  already  made  against  Blasphemy,  Prophaneness,  Adultery,  Forni- 
cation, Polygamy,  Incest,  Prophanation  of  the  Lord's  Day,  Swearing  and 
Drunkenness,  in  their  respective  Governments,  to  be  vigorously  exe- 
cuted; and  his  Majesty  thinking  it  highly  just,  that  all  Persons  who 
shall  offend  in  any  of  the  Particulars  aforesaid,  should  be  prosecuted 
and  punished  for  their  said  Offenses;  it  is  therefore  his  Majesty's  Will 
and  Pleasure,  That  you  take  due  Care  for  the  Punishment  of  the  afore- 
mentioned Vices,  and  that  you  earnestly  recommend  it  to  the  Assembly 

of  his   Majesty's   Province  of to  provide   effectual    Laws  for   the 

Restraint  and  Punishment  of  all  such  aforementioned  Vices,  against 
which  no  Laws  are  as  yet  provided ;  and  also  you  are  to  use  your 
Endeavors  to  render  the  Laws  being  more  effectual,  by  providing  for 
the  Punishment  of  the  aforementioned  Vices,  by  Presentment  upon 
Oath,  to  be  made  to  the  Temporal  Courts  by  the  Church-wardens  of 
the  several  Parishes,  at  proper  Times  of  the  Year,  to  be  appointed  for 


PETITION  OF  GIB  SO  AT  TO   GEORGE  I.  285 

that  Purpose,  And  for  the  further  Discouragement  of  Vice,  and  the 
Encouragement  of  Virtue  and  good  Living  (that  by  such  Example  the 
Infidels  may  be  invited,  and  desire  to  embrace  the  Christian  Religion) 
you  are  not  to  admit  any  Person  to  publick  Trusts  and  Employments 
in  the  Province  under  your  Government,  whose  ill  Fame  and  Conver- 
sation may  occassion  Scandal.  And  it  is  his  Majesty's  further  Will  and 
Pleasure,  that  you  recommend  to  the  Assembly  to  enter  upon  proper 
Methods  for  the  erecting  and  Maintaining  of  Schools,  in  order  to  the 
training  up  of  Youth  to  leading,  and  to  a  necessary  knowledge  of  the 
Principles  of  Religion.' 

The  Commission  above-mention'd  expired  upon  the  Death  of  his 
late  Majesty ;  and  before  a  new  one  could  pass  the  Great  Seal,  it  was 
represented  to  the  Bishop,  '  That  insomuch  as  the  Laws  of  the  Several 
Governments  have  already  provided  for  the  Repair  of  Churches,  and  the 
furnishing  of  such  things  as  are  necessary  for  the  decent  Performance  of 
Divine  Service ;  the  taking  that  care  out  of  the  Hands  of  the  Vestries 
who  are  chiefly  intrusted  with  it,  would  probably  give  Uneasiness,  and 
be  the  Occasion  of  having  the  Fabricks  and  Furniture  of  Churches  not 
so  well  taken  Care  of  as  they  are  at  present ' :  Whereupon  the  Bishop, 
desiring  as  much  as  possible  to  avoid  the  giving  Offense,  and  the  raising 
any  Uneasiness,  was  content  that  the  new  Commission  should  be  con- 
fined to  a  Jurisdiction  of  the  Clergy  alone ;  and  so  it  stands. 


2. 

Petition  of  Bishop  Gibson  to  have  his  Jurisdiction  placed  upon  a 
More  Definite  Basis. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

To  the  King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty  The  humble  Representa- 
tion of  Ethnund  BisJiop  of  London. 

Sheweth 

That  from  the  time  that  Churches  have  been  regularly  established  in 
the  Plantations  abroad,  it  has  been  generally  understood  that  the  Spiritual 
Jurisdiction  over  those  Churches  was  vested  in  the  Bishop  of  London  by 
an  Order  of  Councill  in  the  Reign  of  King  Charles  the  Second.  And  tho' 
no  Such  Order  appears  upon  the  Councill  Books,  nor  has  the  present 
Bishop  been  able  to  discover  it  after  the  Strictest  Search,  yet  he  finds 


286  APPENDIX  A. 

evident  Testimonies  of  such  a  Jurisdiction  claimed  and  exercised  so 
early  as  that  Reign... 

[After  a  short  historical  survey  which  he  concludes  by  alluding  to 
the  appointment  of  commissaries  by  Compton  and  Robinson,  Gibson 
continues  :] 

That  the  Commissaries  being  thus  Empowered  by  the  Bishops  of 
London,  have  attempted  to  proceed  in  the  Exercise  of  Jurisdiction ;  but 
tho  they  have  been  very  careful  not  to  intermeddle  in  Collations,  Wills 
or  Licenses,  yet  have  they  been  absolutely  forbidden  and  hindered  to 
hold  any  Courts  at  all,  or  to  proceed  judicially  in  any  matters  whatsoever  ; 
and  great  Disturbances  have  been  occassioned  thereby,  particularly,  the 
Prohibition  was  carried  so  far  by  Mr.  Lowther,  late  Governor  of  Barba- 
does,  as  to  procure  an  Act  of  Assembly  and  Councill  to  forbid  the 
issuing  any  Citation  or  Process  whatsoever,  under  a  Penalty  of  ^500. 

That  by  this  and  the  like  Restraints  and  Prohibitions,  the  Jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  the  Plantations  is  become  merely 
nominal ;  and  the  Commissaries  appointed  as  above  have  been  deterr'd 
from  proceeding  judicially  against  any  Persons  for  Immoralities  or 
Irregularities  of  any  Kind.  And  it  hath  been  inserted  in  some  Instruc- 
tions to  Governors  as  follows,  If  any  Person  already pref err' d  to  a  Benefice, 
shall  appear  to  you  to  give  Scandal,  either  by  his  Doctrine  or  Mariners, 
you  are  to  use  the  best  means  for  the  Removal  of  him.  By  which  Clause 
in  the  Instructions,  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  even  over  the  Clergy, 
seems  to  be  transferred  to  the  Governor. 

That  upon  account  of  the  Uncertainties  in  the  Jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  London,  and  the  Difficulties  attending  the  exercise  of  it ;  the 
present  Bishop,  to  prevent  the  like  Disorder  and  Confusion  that  hath 
formerly  happened  between  the  Governors  and  Commissaries,  hath  fore- 
bore  to  appoint  a  Commissary  in  any  one  of  the  Governments,  till  your 
Majesty's  Royal  Pleasure  shall  be  known,  and  the  Extent  of  his  Juris- 
diction shall  be  explained  and  ascertained,  in  such  manner  as  may  best 
answer  the  Ends  of  Spiritual  Jurisdiction,  and  at  the  same  time  may 
be  Consistent  with  the  Temporal  Peace  and  Welfare  of  the  Several 
Governments. 

Edm'.  London.' 


ORDER  /AT  COUNCIL   OF  1726.  287 


Order  in  Council  relating  to  Eccleslvstical  Jurisdiction  in  the 

Plantations. 

P.  R.  O.,  B.  T.,  Plantations  General,  Vol.  X.  [8]  70.  Printed  in  New  Jersey 
Archives,  V.  1 26-128. 

At  the  Court  at  Kensington  the  9"^  day  of  Aug'?  1726. 
Present 
The  Kings  Most  Excell'  Majesty  in  Council. 

Whereas  the  Right  Reverend  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  did  some 
time  since  humbly  represent  unto  his  Majesty  at  this  Board  the  Uncer- 
taintys  in  his  Spiritual  Jurisdiction  over  the  Churches  in  his  Majestys 
Plantations  and  the  Difificultys  attending  the  Exercise  of  the  Same,  and 
prayed  that  the  Extent  of  his  said  Jurisdiction  might  be  explained  and 
Ascertained  —  His  Majesty  was  thereupon  pleased  to  referr  the  Consider- 
ation thereof  to  a  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  —  And  Whereas  the 
said  Lords  of  the  Committee  did  this  day  Report  to  his  Majesty  that 
having  considered  the  several  Points,  wherein  it  might  be  proper  for  the 
Lord  Bishop  of  London  or  his  Commissaries  to  exercise  such  Ecclesi- 
astical Jurisdiction,  they  had  thereupon  caused  a  Draught  of  a  Commis- 
sion to  be  prepared  for  putting  the  same  into  Execution — Which 
Draught  the  said  Lords  of  the  Committee  humbly  offered  as  proper  to 
be  forthwith  past  under  the  Great  Seal  of  Great  Britain.  His  Majesty 
in  Council  taking  the  same  into  Consideration  was  pleased  to  approve 
the  said  Draught  of  a  Commission  which  is  hereunto  annexed^  and  to 
order  that  the  same  to  be  forthwith  past,  under  the  Great  Seal  of  Great 
Britain  —  And  his  Majesty  is  hereby  pleased  to  Order,  that  the  Blanks, 
left  in  the  Draught  for  the  names  of  the  persons  to  compose  a  Court, 
for  hearing  Appeales  from  any  Sentences  that  shall  be  given  in  the 
Plantations  by  Virtue  of  the  Said  Commission,  shall  be  filled  up  with  the 
names  of  the  following  Lords  Vizf  — 

William  Lord  Arch  Bishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  Lord  Arch  Bishop  of 
Canterbury  for  the  time  being. 

Peter  Lord  King  Lord  High  Chancellor  and  Lord  High  Chancellor 
or  Lord  Keeper  for  the  time  being. 

^  This  commission  expired  with  the  death  of  George  I.,  June  12,  1727;  the  one 
under  which  Gibson  exercised  his  jurisdiction  was  issued  by  George  II.,  April  29, 
1728,  and  is  printed  below,  pp.  289-293. 


288  APPENDIX  A. 

Lancelot  Lord  Arch  Bishop  of  York  and  the  Lord  Arch  Bishop  of 
York  for  the  time  being. 

The  Lord  High  Treasurer  for  the  time  being. 

William  Duke  of  Devonshire  Lord  President  of  his  Majestys  Most 
Hon*'.'^  Privy  Council  and  the  Lord  President  of  the  Council  for  the  time 
being. 

Thomas  Lord  Trevor  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Privy  Seal  and  the  Lord 
Privy  Seal  for  the  time  being. 

Lionel  Duke  of  Dorset  Lord  Steward  of  his  Majesty's  Household  and 
the  Lord  Steward  for  the  time  being. 

Charles  Duke  of  Grafton  Lord  Chamberlain  of  his  Majesty's  House- 
hold and  the  Lord  Chamberlain  for  the  time  being. 

Thomas  Holies  Duke  of  Newcastle  —  One  of  his  Majesty's  Principal 
Secretarys  of  State  and  the  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  the  time 
being. 

Thomas  Earl  of  Westmoreland 

James  Earl  of  Berkley  First  Commissf  of  the  Admirality  and  the 
Lord  High  Admiral  and  First  Commissioner  of  the  Admirality  for  the 
time  being. 

Charles  Lord  Visco'  Townshend  One  of  his  Majestys  Principal  Secre- 
taries of  State  and  the  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  the  time  being. 

Edmund  Lord  Bishop  of  London  and  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  for 
the  time  being. 

Sf  Spencer  Compton  Kn'  of  the  Bath  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons and  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  for  the  time  being. 

Sr  Robert  Walpole  Kn'  of  the  Garter  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
and  First  Commissi  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
and  first  Commissi  of  the  Treasury  for  the  time  being. 

Sf  Robert  Raymond  Kn'  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  his  Majestys  Court  of 
Kings  Bench  and  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  Kings  Bench  for  the  time 
being. 

Sir  Joseph  Jekyll  Kn?  Master  of  the  Rolls  and  the  Master  of  the  Rolls 
for  the  time  being. 

Sf  Robert  Eyre  Kn,  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
and  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas  for  the  time  being. 

being  members  of  his  Majesty's  most  Hon*''®  Privy  Council,  And  that 
any  three  of  the  said  Lords  do  make  a  Quorum.  And  one  of  his 
Majesty's  Principal  Secretaries  of  State  is  to  prepare  a  Warrant  for  his 
Majesty's  Royal  Signature  in  order  to  pass  the  said  Commission  under 
the  Great  Seal  Accordingly. 


ROYAL   COMMISSION-  OF  1728.  289 

Copy  of  an  Order  in  Council  of  the  19'^  of  August  1726  directing  a  Com- 
mission to  pass  under  y^  Great  Seal  relating  to  y'=  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  y« 
Plan*  &  appointing  a  Court  for  Hearing  Appeals  pursuant  to  y^  S^  Com'ission. 


Commission  to  the  Bishop  of  London   for  exercising  Jurisdiction 
IN  THE  American  Colonies. 

New  York  Colonial  Documents,  V.  849-854,  from  Plantations  General 
Papers,  XI.   10. 

Royal   Commission  for  exercising  SpiriUial  and  Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction  in  the  American  Plantatiojis. 

George  the  Second,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  King  of  Great  Britain 
France  and  Ireland,  Defender  of  the  Faith  &c,  To  the  Reverend  father 
in  Christ,  Edmund,  by  Divine  permission.  Bishop  of  London,  Greeting  : 

Whereas  the  Colonies,  Plantations,  and  other  our  dominions  in  America, 
are  not  yet  divided  into,  constituted  as,  neither  annexed  to,  any  Diocese 
within  our  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  ;  by  reason  whereof  Jurisdiction  in 
Ecclesiastical  causes  arising  in  them,  or  in  any  one  of  them,  belongeth  to 
Us  only,  as  the  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  on  earth ;  And  whereas  it 
seemeth  to  Us  necessary  that  henceforth  Spiritual  and  Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction  should,  in  the  cases  hereinafter  mentioned,  be  estabHshed, 
and  exercised  in  those  parts,  by  virtue  of  our  Royal  Authority,  according 
to  the  Laws  and  Canons  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  England  lawfully 
received  and  sanctioned,  to  the  better  promoting  of  the  sincere  worship 
of  God,  and  the  pure  profession  of  the  Christian  Religion  ;  and  whereas 
our  Royal  Father,  George  the  First,  late  King  of  Great  Britain,  &c.,  did, 
by  letters  patent,  under  the  great  seal  of  Great  Britain,  bearing  date  at 
Westminster,  the  ninth  of  February,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  his  reign, 
give  and  grant  unto  you,  the  Bishop  of  London  aforesaid,  full  power  and 
authority,  by  yourself,  or  by  your  sufficient  commissary,  or  commissaries 
to  be  by  you  substituted  and  named,  to  exercise  Spiritual  and  Ecclesias- 
tical Jurisdiction  in  his  several  Colonies,  Plantations,  and  other  dominions 
in  America,  during  the  good  pleasure  of  the  said  late  King,  as  by  the 
said  letters  patent  doth,  upon  examination,  more  fully  appear;  Know 
ve,  that  We  have  revoked,  and  determined,  and  do,  by  these  presents, 
revoke,  and  determine  the  above  mentioned  letters  patent,  with  all  and 
singular  the  things  therein  contained.  And  further  know  ye,  that  We, 
reposing  especial  confidence  in  your  sound  religion,  learning  and  probity, 
and  in  your  prudence  and  industry  in  the  management  of  affairs,  have. 


290  APPENDIX  A. 

of  our  special  favor,  certain  knowledge  and  mere  motion,  given  and 
granted,  and  do  by  these  presents,  give  and  grant  to  you,  the  Bishop  of 
London  aforesaid,  full  power  and  authority,  by  yourself,  or  by  your 
sufficient  commissary,  or  commissaries  to  be  by  you  substituted  and 
named,  to  exercise  Spiritual  and  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the  special 
causes  and  matters  hereinafter  expressed  and  specified,  within  our  several 
Colonies,  Plantations,  and  other  dominions  in  America,  according  to  the 
laws  and  canons  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  England  lawfully  received 
and  sanctioned.  And  for  declaration  of  our  Royal  Pleasure  as  to  the 
special  causes  and  matters  in  which  we  will  that  the  Jurisdiction  above 
named  be,  by  virtue  of  this  our  commission,  exercised,  we  have  further 
given  and  granted,  and  do,  by  these  presents,  give  and  grant  to  you,  the 
Bishop  of  London  aforesaid,  full  power  and  authority,  by  yourself,  or  by 
your  sufficient  commissary,  or  commissaries  to  be  by  you  substituted  and 
named,  to  visit  all  churches  in  our  aforesaid  Colonies,  Plantations,  and 
other  dominions  in  America,  in  which  Divine  Service  according  to  the 
Rites  and  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  shall  have  been  celebrated, 
and  the  Rectors,  Curates  Ministers  and  Incumbents,  by  whatever  name 
called  belonging  to  said  Churches,  and  all  Presbyters  and  Deacons 
admitted  into  the  Holy  Orders  of  the  Church  of  England,  with  all  and 
every  Sort  of  Jurisdiction,  power,  and  Ecclesiastical  coercion,  requisite 
in  the  premises ;  and  to  Summon  the  aforesaid  Rectors,  Curates,  Minis- 
ters, Incumbents,  Presbyters  or  Deacons  admitted  into  the  Holy  Orders 
of  the  Church  of  England,  or  any  of  them,  and  no  person  else,  before 
yourself  or  your  commissary,  or  commissaries  aforesaid,  upon  whatever 
days  and  hours,  and  at  whatever  suitable  places,  as  often  as,  and  when- 
soever, to  yourself  or  to  your  commissary,  or  commissaries  aforesaid, 
shall  seem  most  fit  and  convenient,  and  by  means  of  witnesses,  to  be 
sworn  in  due  form  of  law  by  yourself,  or  your  commissary,  or  commis- 
saries aforesaid,  and  by  such  other  proper  ways  and  methods,  as  can 
with  right  be  more  advantageously  and  effectually  used,  to  examine  con- 
cerning the  manners  of  the  same,  according  to  the  laws  and  canons  of 
the  Church  of  England ;  and  also  to  administer  all  oaths  lawful  and 
customary  in  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  and  to  correct  and  punish  the  afore- 
said Rectors,  Curates,  Ministers,  Incumbents,  Presbyters  and  Deacons 
in  the  Holy  Orders  of  the  Church  of  England,  according  to  their  demerits, 
whether  by  amotion,  suspension,  excommunication,  or  by  any  sort  of 
Ecclesiastical  censure,  or  due  correction,  according  to  the  canons  and 
Laws  Ecclesiastical  aforesaid.  And  further,  of  our  superabundant  favor, 
we  have  given  and  granted,  and  do,  by  these  presents,  give  and  grant  to 


ROYAL   COMMISSION  OF  1728.  29 1 

you,  the  Bishop  of  London  aforesaid,  full  power  and  authority,  from  time 
to  time,  to  nominate  and  substitute  under  your  hand  and  Episcopal  seal, 
sufficient  Commissaries  to  exercise  and  effectually  execute  all  and  singular 
the  premises,  in  each  and  every  of  the  Colonies,  Plantations,  and  Domin- 
ions aforesaid,  in  America,  according  to  the  tenor  and  true  intent  of  this 
our  Commission,  and  from  time  to  time,  to  remove  and  change  such 
Commissaries,  as  to  you  shall  seem  fit.  You,  the  Bishop  of  London 
aforesaid  having  and  enjoying  all  and  singular,  the  powers  and  authori- 
ties above  recited,  during  our  good  pleasure.  We  will,  nevertheless,  and 
do  by  these  presents,  declare  and  ordain,  that  it  may  and  shall  be  lawful 
for  any  person,  or  persons  whatsoever,  against  whom  any  judgment, 
decree,  or  sentence,  shall  have  been  given  or  pronounced,  by  virtue  of 
this  our  Commission,  to  appeal  from  such  judgment,  decree,  or  sentence, 
to  our  Right  trusty  and  Well-beloved  Councillors,  the  most  Reverend 
Father  in  Christ  William,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  for  the  time  being ;  Peter,  Lord  King,  Baron  of 
Ockham,  our  Chancellor  of  Great  Britain,  and  to  our  Chancellor  of  Great 
Britain,  or  Keeper  of  our  Great  Seal  of  Great  Britain  for  the  time  being  ; 
the  Most  Reverend  Father  in  Christ,  Lancelot,  Archbishop  of  York,  and 
to  the  Archbishop  of  York  for  the  time  being ;  our  High  Treasurer  of 
Great  Britain  for  the  time  being ;  William,  Duke  of  Devonshire,  Presi- 
dent of  our  Privy  Council,  and  to  the  President  of  our  Privy  Council  for 
the  time  being ;  Thomas,  Lord  Trevor,  Keeper  of  our  Privy  Seal,  and 
to  the  Keeper  of  our  Privy  Seal  for  the  time  being ;  Lionel  Cranfield, 
Duke  of  Dorset,  Steward  of  our  Palace,  and  to  the  Steward  of  our  Palace 
for  the  time  being ;  Charles,  Duke  of  Grafton,  Chamberlain  of  our  Palace, 
and  to  the  Chamberlain  of  our  Palace  for  the  time  being  ;  Thomas,  Duke 
of  Newcastle,  one  of  our  Principal  Secretaries  of  State ;  Thomas,  Earl 
of  Westmoreland,  Charles,  Viscount  Townshend,  another  of  our  Principal 
Secretaries  of  State,  and  to  our  Principal  Secretaries  of  State  for  the  time 
being ;  George,  Viscount  Torrington,  First  Lord  Commissioner  of  our 
Admiralty,  and  to  our  Lord  High  Admiral,  and  first  Lord  Commissioner 
of  the  Admiralty  for  the  time  being  ;  Arthur  Onslow,  our  Speaker  of  our 
House  of  Commons,  and  to  the  Speaker  of  our  House  of  Commons  for 
the  time  being  ;  Robert  Walpole,  Knight  of  the  most  Noble  Order  of  the 
Garter,  Chancellor  of  our  Exchequer,  and  First  Lord  of  our  Treasury, 
and  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  and  first  Lord  of  the  Treasury 
for  the  time  being ;  Robert  Raymond,  Knight,  our  Chief  Justice  of  Pleas 
before  Us,  and  to  our  Chief  Justice  of  Pleas  before  us  for  the  time  being ; 
Joseph  Jekyll,  Knight,  Master  of  the  Rolls  of  our  Chancery,  and  to  the 


292  APPENDIX  A. 

Master  of  the  Rolls  of  our  Chancery  for  the  time  being,  and  Robert 
Eyre,  Knight,  our  Chief  Justice  of  Common  Pleas,  and  to  our  Chief 
Justice  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  time  being.  To  whom,  that  is  to  say,  to 
William,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
for  the  time  being ;  Peter,  Lord  King,  Chancellor  of  Great  Britain,  or 
the  Keeper  of  our  Great  Seal  of  Great  Britain  for  the  time  being ;  Lance- 
lot, Archbishop  of  York,  and  to  the  Archbishop  of  York  for  the  time 
being ;  our  High  Treasurer  of  Great  Britain  for  the  time  being  ;  William, 
Duke  of  Devonshire,  and  to  the  President  of  our  Privy  Council  for  the 
time  being ;  Thomas,  Lord  Trevor,  and  to  the  Keeper  of  our  Privy  Seal 
for  the  time  being ;  Lionel  Cranfield,  Duke  of  Dorset,  and  to  the  Steward 
of  our  Palace  for  the  time  being ;  Charles,  Duke  of  Grafton,  and  to  the 
Chamberlain  of  our  Palace  for  the  time  being ;  Thomas,  Duke  of  New- 
castle, Thomas  Earl  of  Westmoreland,  Charles  Viscount  Townshend,  and 
to  the  Principal  Secretaries  of  State  for  the  time  being  ;  George  Viscount 
Torrington,  and  to  our  Lord  Pligh  Admiral  and  First  Lord  Commissioner 
of  our  Admiralty  for  the  time  being ;  Arthur  Onslow,  and  to  the  Speaker 
of  our  House  of  Commons  for  the  time  being ;  Robert  Walpole,  and  to 
the  Chancellor  of  our  Exchequer,  and  First  Lord  of  our  Treasury,  for 
the  time  being ;  Robert  Raymond,  and  to  our  Chief  Justice  of  Pleas 
before  Us  for  the  time  being ;  Joseph  Jekyll,  and  to  the  Master  of  the 
Rolls  of  our  Chancery  for  the  time  being ;  and  to  Robert  Eyre,  and  to 
our  Chief  Justice  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  time  being,  being  of  our  Privy 
Council,  or  to  any  three  or  more  of  them,  being  of  our  Privy  Council ; 
We  do  by  these  presents  give  and  grant,  full  power  and  Authority,  from 
time  to  time,  to  hear  and  determine,  all  and  singular,  such  appeals  ;  and, 
such  judgments,  decrees,  and  sentences,  to  confirm,  change,  or  revoke, 
and  final  judgment  or  sentence  thereupon,  to  give  and  pronounce,  in 
manner  and  form  as  full  as  the  Commissioners  constituted  and  appointed 
under  our  Great  Seal  of  Great  Britain  by  virtue  of  the  Statute  of  the 
twenty  fifth  year  of  Henry  Eighth  late  King  of  England  entituled,  "An 
Act  for  the  submission  of  the  Clergy  and  the  restraint  of  Appeals,"  can 
or  ought  to  proceed,  in  appeals  subject  to  their  decision,  by  the  Statute 
aforesaid ;  anything  in  these  presents  contained,  to  the  contrary,  not- 
withstanding. Commanding,  moreover,  and  by  these  presents  strictly 
enjoining,  all  and  singular,  our  Governor-Generals,  Judges,  and  Magis- 
trates, together  with  all  and  singular,  our  Rectors,  Incumbents,  Ministers, 
Officers,  and  Subjects  of  what  sort  soever,  within  our  Colonies,  Planta- 
tions, and  other  dominions  aforesaid,  in  America,  that  they  and  each  of 
them,  shall  be  to  you,  the  Bishop  of  London  aforesaid,  and  to  your  com- 


ADDITIONAL  INSTRUCTIONS  TO  ROYAL  GOVERNORS.     293 

missary,  or  commissaries  aforesaid,  in  all  things,  aiding  and  assisting,  as 
is  fit,  in  the  due  execution  of  the  premises.  In  testimony  whereof.  We 
have  caused  these  Our  Letters  to  be  made  patent.  Witness  Ourself,  at 
Westminster,  the  twenty  ninth  day  of  April,  in  the  first  year  of  our  Reign. 
By  writ  of  Privy  Seal 

BissE  and  Bray. 
5- 
Additional  Instructions  to  the  Governors  of  the  Plantations  — 
TO  support  the  Bishop  of  London  and  his  Commissaries. 

From  P.  R.  O.,  B.  T.  Plantations  General,  No.  35,  Entry  Book  F,  165. 
Also  printed  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  V.  264. 

To  the  King's  Most  Excell!  Majesty. 
May  it  please  your  Majesty, 

In  Obedience  to  Your  Majesty's  Commands  Signify'd  to  Us  by  his 
Grace  y*  Duke  of  Newcastle's  Letter  of  the  21'.'  of  the  last  Month,  we 
have  prepar'd  the  inclos'd  Draughts  of  Instructions  to  all  Your  Majesty's 
Governors  in  America,  (except  as  undermention'd)  directing  them  to 
support  the  Bishop  of  London  «Sr  his  Commissaries  in  the  Exercise  of 
Such  Jurisdiction  as  is  granted  to  his  Lordship  by  Your  Majesty's 
Commission  to  him. 

We  have  not  inclos'd  the  Draughts  of  the  Instruction  to  the  Governors 
of  the  Leeward  Islands,  Massachusetts  Bay  &  New  Hampshire,  North 
&  South  Carolina,  as  we  intend  to  incorporate  it  in  the  General  In- 
structions we  are  now  preparing  for  the  Governors  of  those  Places  : 
All  which  is  most  humbly  Submitted. 

Edw"  Ashe.  Westmoreland. 

Orl.  Bridgeman.     p.  Doeminique. 
W.  Gary.  T.  Pelham. 

M.  Bladen. 
Whitehall  17'!'  March  17^. 

6. 

Draught  of  an  Additional  Instruction  relating  to  the  Bishop  of 
London's  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  America. 

From  P.  R.  O.,  B.  T.  Plantations  General,  No.  35,  Entry  Book  F,  165. 
Also  printed  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  V.  265. 

Having  been  graciously  pleas'd  to  grant  unto  the  Right  Rev*?  Father 
in  God  Edmund  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  a  Commission  under  Our 
Great  Seal  of  Great  Britain,  whereby  he  is  impower'd  to  Exercise 


294 


APPENDIX  A. 


Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  by  himself  or  by  such  Commissaries  as  he 
shall  appoint,  in  Our  Several  Plantations  in  America ;  It  is  Our  Will  «Sr 
Pleasure,  That  you  give  all  Countenance  &  due  Encouragement  to  the 
Said  Bishop  of  London  or  his  Commissaries  in  the  Legal  Exercise  of 
Such  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction,  according  to  the  Laws  of  the  Island 
[Province]  Colony  under  your  Government,  &  to  the  Tenor  of  the  Said 
Commission,  a  Copy  whereof  is  hereunto  annex'd,  &  that  you  do  cause 
the  Said  Commission  to  be  forthwith  Register'd  in  the  Publick  Records 
of  that  Our  Island  (Province)  Colony : 

Draughts  of  the  foregoing  Additional  Instruction,  were  prepar'd  for 


Robert  Hunter,  Esq! 
Henry  Worsley 
John  Pitt 
Woodes  Rogers 
Rich"^  Philips 
J".°  Montgomerie 
Earl  of  Orkney 
Ben"  Leonard  Calvert, 
Patrick  Gordon,     . 


Gov!  of  Jamaica. 

Barbadoes. 

Bermuda. 

Bahama's. 

.     Nova  Scotia. 

New  York  &  N.  Jersey. 

Virginia. 

Maryland. 

.  Pennsylvania. 


VI.    METHODUS     PROCEDENDI    CONTRA    CLERICOS    IRREGU- 
LARES   IN   PLANTATIONIBUS   AMERICANIS.i 

From  a  copy  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

I. 

Appointment  of  a  Commissary. 

Edmiindiis,  Permissione  Divind  London'  Episcopus,  Dilecto  Nobis 
in  Christo, 

Salutem,  Gratiam  &  Benedictionem.     Ad  exercendam  Jurisdictionem 

Spiritualem  &  Ecclesiasticam  infra  Provinciam in  America  sitam, 

secundum    tenorem    Commissionis    Serenissimi    nostri    Regis    Georgii 
Secundi   sub   magno   Sigillo   gerentis   dat'   vicesimo  nono  die  Aprilis, 

^  A  quarto  pamphlet  of  i6  pages.  The  copy  among  the  Fulham  MSS.  is  the  only 
one  known  to  be  in  existence.  There  is  no  date  or  place  of  publication;  but  the 
instructions  were  issued  by  Bishop  Gibson  on  the  28th  of  September,  1728,  and  were 
probably  printed  privately. 


METHODUS  PROCEDEATD/,   1728.  295 

anno  Regni  sui  primo,  prsesentibusq?/^/  annexge,  &  non  aliter  neque 
alio  modo,  Tibi  de  cujus  Scientia,  Circumspectione,  Fidelitate,  &  Indus- 
tria  plurimum  Confidimus,  Vices  nostras  tenore  prsesentium  CoiTiittimus, 
Teque  Commissarium  nostrum  ad  omnia  in  dictis  Literis  Commis- 
sionalibus  contenta,  &  non  alio,  Commissarium  nostrum  Facimus  & 
Constituimus  per  Prsesentes,  durante  bene  placito  nostro.  In  cujus  rei 
testimonium,  Sigillum  nostrum  Episcopale  praesentibus  opponi  fecimus. 

N.  B.     The  Commissary,  before  he  enters  upon  his  Office,  is  to  take 
the  Oaths,  and  make  the  Subscription  required  by  the  127th  Canon. 


2. 

Directions  to  the  Commissary. 
Good  Brother, 

His  Majesty  having  been  pleased  to  empower  me,  under  the 
Great  Seal,  to  exercise  Jurisdiction  over  the  Clergy  in  the  Plantations 
abroad,  which  are  as  yet  within  no  Diocese,  but  remain  under  the  imme- 
diate Jurisdiction  of  the  King  as  Supreme  Head  ;  I  have  thought  proper 
to  appoint  you  my  Commissary,  and  do  accordingly  transmit  to  you  a 
Commission  under  my  Episcopal  Seal,  together  with  a  Copy  of  his 
Majesty's  Commission  to  me ;  by  which  you  will  see  the  Manner  and 
Extent  of  the  Jurisdiction  that  is  to  be  Exercis'd  by  you  as  my  Commis- 
sary within  the  Government  of . 

As  to  the  Method  of  your  Procedings,  and  the  Things  which  I  would 
more  particularly  recommend  to  your  Care ;  I  have  judg'd  it  proper  to 
set  them  down  distinctly  under  the  following  Heads. 

I.  That  when  any  Clergyman  shall  be  found  irregular  in  his  Life,  or 
negligent  in  the  Duties  of  his  Station,  you  give  him  a  private  Admoni- 
tion ;  and  acquaint  me,  by  the  first  Opportunity,  with  the  Occasions  you 
found  to  give  him  such  Admonition  :  Only,  if  the  Crimes  charg'd  upon 
him  be  of  a  flagrant  Nature,  and  also  publick  and  notorious,  it  will  be 
fit,  either  that  the  Admonition  be  vciort  publick,  in  the  presence  of  such 
of  the  Clergy  as  you  shall  think  proper,  or  that  he  be  immediately 
proceded  against  in  a  Judicial  manner. 

II.  That  the  Process  be  in  a  short  and  sum?nary  Way,  according  to 
the  Order  and  Method  laid  out,  and  Contain'd  in  a  Paper  of  Directiojis 
herewith  transmitted  to  you  ;  entitled  the  Method  of  Proceding  against 
irregular  Clergymen. 

III.  That  when  the  Cause  comes  to  the  Hearing,  you  take  to  your 
Assistance  at  least  Two  Clergymen,  whom  you  shall  think  most  proper ; 


296  APPENDIX  A. 

and  that  you  confer  with  them,  and  that  you  desire  their  Opinions  in 
Relation  to  the  Nature  of  the  Crime,  and  the  Circumstances  of  the 
Proofs,  and  the  Sentence  proper  to  be  given. 

IV.  That  if  the  Crime  be  not  flagrant,  and  notorious,  you  rather 
chuse  the  Sentence  of  Suspension  ab  Officio  &'  Beneficio,  for  such  time 
as  shall  be  judg'd  convenient,  than  immediate  Deprivation,  tho'  the  case 
in  Strictness  might  bear  the  latter;  To  the  End  the  Party  may  have 
an  Opportunity,  in  that  Space,  to  give  Proof  of  his  Repentence  and 
Reformation,  or  if  he  do  not,  that  he  may  be  prosecuted  a-new  in  order 
to  Deprivation. 

V.  That  once  every  year  you  hold  a  Visitation  of  the  Clergy,  in  some 
Place  or  Places  which  may  be  most  convenient  for  that  Purpose ;  and 
that  you  take  that  Opportunity  to  Communicate  to  them  any  Directions 
or  Notices  which  you  shall  receive  from  hence ;  and  to  give  such  Things 
in  Charge,  as  either  the  General  State  of  the  Church,  or  any  particular 
Occasions,  may  require ;  and  to  confer  with  them  about  the  State  of 
Religion,  and  the  best  Methods  of  promoting  it,  in  your  several  Parishes. 
More  particularly,  to  put  them  in  mind  that  one  necessary  means  of  pro- 
moting and  propagating  it  within  the  [Parish],  is,  the  exemplary  Lives 
of  themselves  and  their  Families,  and  the  Care  they  take  to  instruct  their 
own  Negro  and  Indian  Servants  in  the  Christian  Faith.  .  .  Of  all 
which  Proceedings,  you  are  to  give  me  an  Account,  as  soon  as  you 
conveniently  can,  after  the  Visitation  is  finished. 

VI.  That  you  make  proper  Enquiries  concerning  the  State  and  Con- 
dition of  all  such  Parsonage  Houses  as  are  repair'd  at  the  charge  of  the 
Ministers,  and  also  of  the  Glebes,  whether  their  Houses  be  preserved  in 
due  Reparation,  and  the  Glebes  improv'd  and  occupied  in  a  Husband- 
like Manner. 

VII.  That  you  enquire  from  time  to  time,  whether  any  Person  be 
receiv'd  and  allow'd  to  officiate,  who  has  not  a  Testimonial  or  License 
from  me,  or  my  Predecessors,  for  that  Government,  or  coming  from 
some  other  Government  or  Governments  in  the  Plantations,  did  not 
moreover  bring  with  him  proper  Testimonials  of  his  good  Behaviour 
from  the  time  that  he  first  arriv'd  in  the  Plantations  :  And  if  any  be 
receiv'd  and  employ'd  who  has  no  License  ;  or,  having  a  License,  doth 
not  also  produce  such  Testimonials ;  that  you  give  me  notice  of  it  by 
the  first  Opportunity. 

VIII.  That  you  inform  me,  what  steps  are  or  shall  be  taken  towards 
the  obtaining  an  Act  of  Assembly,  for  Presentments  of  Crimes  and  Vices 
to  be  to  the  Temporal  Courts  twice  every  year ;  according  to  the  pur- 


METHODUS  PROCEDENDI. 


297 


port  of  a  late  Clause,  which  has  been  added  to  the  Instructions  of  every 
Governour  in  the  Plantations  :  To  the  End  that  I  may  be  able  to  inform 
his  Majesty  and  the  Council,  in  what  Manner  and  to  what  Degree,  the 
Suppression  of  Vice  and  Immorality  among  the  Laity  is  provided  for 
in  that  Government  by  the  Temporal  Laws ;  pursuant  to  his  Majesty's 
gracious  Intention  in  sending  the  said  Instruction. 

IX.  That  you  give  me  Notice,  from  time  to  time,  of  any  Hardships 
or  Oppressions  that  you  find  the  Clergy  to  labour  under,  in  relation  to 
the  Rights  which  they  are  entitled  to  by  the  Laws  and  Constitution  of 
the  Government. 

X.  That  you  take  all  proper  Opportunities  to  recommend  to  the 
Clergy  a  loyal  and  dutiful  Behaviour  towards  the  present  Government, 
as  vested  in  his  Majesty  King  George,  and  establish'd  in  the  Illustrious 
House  oi  Hanover ;  and  that  they  pay  all  due  Submission  and  Respect 
to  the  Governour  sent  by  him,  as  well  in  regard  to  his  Commission  and 
Character,  as  to  engage  his  Favour  and  Protection  to  the  Church  and 
Clergy. 

These  are  the  Things  which  I  would  suggest  to  you,  as  general  Rules 
that  may  be  proper  to  be  observed  in  the  Exercise  of  your  Jurisdiction, 
leaving  it  to  your  own  Prudence  and  Judgment  to  apply  them  to  particu- 
lar Cases,  as  there  Shall  be  Occasion.  And  so,  commending  you  to  the 
good  Providence  of  God,  and  to  his  gracious  Direction  in  this  and  all 
your  other  Affairs,  I  remain. 

Sir, 
Fulham  Sept.  Your  assur'd  Friend  and  Brother, 

2^^728-  Edm.' London.' 


3- 

The  Method  of  Proceeding  against  Irregular  Clergymen. 

The  Place  of  Judicature  to  be,  either  some  convenient  part  of  the 
Church  where  the  Commissary  is  Incumbent,  or  where  the  Party  prose- 
cuted dwells. 

Prosecution  to  be  either  ex  Officio  mero,  i.e.  by  the  Office  assigning  a 
Promoter,  or  by  Accusation  ;  if  the  latter,  such  voluntary  Promoter  to  give 
a  Bond  of  20  1.  by  way  of  Security  to  pay  Costs,  if  he  fail  in  the  Proof. 

The  Proceeding  to  be  in  a  Summary  way,  as  follows  :  The  Citation  to 
be  under  the  Commissary's  Seal,  to  appear  at  a  Time  and  Place  certain. 
Such  Citation  to  be  served  by  a  Person  who  can  at  least  Read  and 


298  APPENDIX  A. 

Write,  and  who  shall  make  oath  that  He  duly  serv'd  it,  and  left  a  Copy 
or  Abstract  thereof  with  the  Party. 

If  he  could  not  serve  it  upon  the  Party,  then  a  Process  Viis  &  Modis 
is  to  be  hung  on  the  Church  Door  where  the  said  Party  officiates,  or  on 
the  Door  of  the  House  wherein  he  dwelt,  returnable  the  next  Court-day 
appointed  for  that  Cause.  And  here  it  is  to  be  remember'd,  that  when 
a  Cause  is  once  Instituted,  the  Courts  are  to  be  held  regularly  every  ten 
Days. 

If  there  be  no  Appearance  after  Ser\'ice  of  the  Viis  «&  Modis,  He  is  to 
be  pronounc'd  Contumacious,  and  in  pcenam  Contumacice,  the  Wit- 
ness [es]  are  to  be  admitted,  sworn,  and  examined,  and  their  Depositions 
pubUsh'd,  and  a  Day  assign'd  for  Sentence. 

On  the  day  of  Appearance,  Articles  are  to  be  given,  and  the  Issue 
required,  viz.  Whether  he  confess  or  deny  the  Charge.  If  He  confess. 
Punishment  to  be  inflicted  according  to  the  Nature  and  QuaHty  of  the 
Offense,  either  by  Admonition,  Suspension,  or  Deprivation,  together  \\-ith 
the  Costs  necessarily  expended. 

If  he  deny  the  Charge,  then  Witnesses  are  to  be  produced,  who  being 
sworn  to  speak  the  Truth,  and  the  whole  Truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
Truth,  indifferently,  between  the  Parties  concern'd,  shall  be  examin'd 
by  a  Xotar}'  Publick  (if  conveniently  may  be)  or  by  a  Person  skilful  in 
taking  Depositions,  and  in  the  Presence  of  the  Commissar)',  and  His 
Assessors  o?ily  ;  eight  and  forty  Hours  being  first  allow'd  to  the  Defend- 
ant, to  enquire  into  the  characters  of  the  several  Witnesses,  and  to  frame 
such  Interrogations  as  He  shall  think  proper. 

The  Depositions  are  to  be  kept  private,  till  all  the  Witnesses  are 
examin'd ;  and  when  the  Examination  of  a  Witness  is  finish'd,  both  as 
to  his  Deposition  on  the  Articles,  and  his  Answers  to  the  Interrogatories, 
the  whole  to  be  read  over  to  him  by  the  Examiner  in  the  Presence  of 
the  Judge  and  his  Assessors,  and  the  Witness  ask'd,  whether  it  be  agree- 
able to  his  Mind,  and  whether  it  be  all  true  ?  and  if  he  answer  affirma- 
tively, he  is  to  sign  it. 

Witnesses  duly  Summon'd  and  not  appearing,  or  appearing,  and  yet 
refusing  to  undergo  their  Examinations,  altho'  their  necessary  Expences 
are  allow'd  them,  may  be  compelled  thereto  by  Ecclesiastical  Censures. 

The  Defendant  to  be  at  Liberty,  by  himself,  or  any  other  Person  act- 
ing as  Proctor  or  Advocate  for  him,  before  the  Depositions  are  publish'd 
(which  must  not  be  till  the  next  Court-day  after  the  Examinations  are 
finish'd)  to  give  in  a  Defensive  Plea. 

If  the  Office,  on  admitting  such  Plea  as  relevant,  find  it  necessary  to 


METHOD  us  PR  OC ED  END/.  299 

give  a  further  Allegation  in  order  to  Support  the  Articles,  to  do  it  within 
seven  days,  and  make  Proof  thereof  within  a  fortnight ;  and  then  no 
farther  Pleadings,  but  the  Cause  to  stand  concluded  and  assign'd  for 
Sentence  the  next  Court-day. 

If  there  be  not  Proof  sufficient  in  Law,  the  Defendant  is  to  be  dis- 
miss'd  with  his  Costs. 

Appeal  to  be  within  fifteen  Days  to  the  Judges  appointed  by  the 
King's  Commission ;  the  Appellant  depositing  the  Sum  of  ten  Pounds, 
and  making  Oath  that  he  will  bond  fide  prosecute  the  same  within  20 
days.  A  Copy  thereupon  of  all  the  Proceedings  in  the  said  Cause  shall 
be  deliver'd  to  him  (he  being  at  the  Charge  of  Copying)  in  order  to 
their  being  transmitted  under  the  Commissary's  Seal,  and  attested  to  be 
true  Copy  by  the  Person  acting  as  Register. 

The  Register  is  to  enter  all  Proceedings  in  a  Book  kept  for  that  Pur- 
pose, and  to  preser\-e  carefully  all  Original  Processes,  Articles,  Decrees, 
&c. 

4. 

Instruments   and   other   things   referr'd   to   in  the    Method   of 

Proceeding. 

N°  I.   Citation. 

N.  N.  Reverendi  in  Christo  Patris  ac  Domini  Domini  Edmundi,  Per- 
missione  Divina  London'  Episcopi,  Commissarius  legitime  constitutus, 
Universis  &  singulis  Clericis  &  Literatis  quibuscunque  in  &  per  totam 

Provinciam ubiUbet  constitutis,  Salutem.     Vobis  conjunctim  &  di- 

visim  committimus  ac  firmiter  injungendo  mandamus,  quatenus  Citetis 

seu  citari  faciatis  peremtorie  P.  P.  parochiae Rectorem  sive  Incum- 

bentem,  quod  legitime  compareat  coram  nobis  in  Ecclesia  de locoq?^^  / 

judiciaU  ibidem,  die  sexto  aut post  Citationem  hujusmodi  eidem  P.  P. 

in  hac  parte  factam,  certis  Articulis,  Capitulis,  sive  Interrogatoriis,  meram 
Animas  suae  Salutem,  morumque  &  excessuum  suorum  reformationem  & 
correctionem  concernentibus,  &  praesertim  propter  [the  Crime]  ei  ob- 
jiciend'  &  ministrand'  ulteriusque  factur'  &  receptur'  quod  justum  fuerit 
in  hac  parte  sub  poena  Juris  &  Contemptus  ;  &  quid  in  praemissis  feceri- 
tis  nos  debite  certificetis  una  cum  prassentibus.  Dat.  &c.  [Commissary's 
Name  and  Seal  to  be  set  to  this,  and  to  every  other  Instrument  in  the 
Course  of  the  Proceeding.] 

Indorsement :  This  Citation  was  personally  serv'd  on  the  within-named 
P.  P.  by  shewing  to  him  the  Original  under  Seal,  and  at  the  same  time 


300  APPENDIX  A. 

delivering  to  him  an  English  Note,  containing  the  effect  hereof,  this 
Day  of        in  the  Year  of  our  Lord         by  me  A.  B. 

Juratis  fuit  praefatus  A.  B.  super  veritate  praemissorum  Coram  me 
N.  N.  Commissario. 

The  Form  of  the  English  Note  is  to  be  thus :  you  are  hereby  Cited 
to  appear  at  the  Church  of  on  the  Day  of  before  the 

Reverend  Commissary,  to  answer  to  such  Articles  as  shall  then  be 

objected  to  you. 

[The  Apparitor's  Name.] 

N°  2.     Citation  Viis  &  Modis. 

N.  N.  Reverendi  in  Christo  Patris  ac  Domini  Domini  Edmundi  Per- 
missione  Divina  London'  Episcopi  Commissarius  legitime  constitutus, 
Universis  &  Singulis  Clericis  &  Literatis  quibuscunque  in  &  per  totam 
Provinciam ubilibet  constitutis,  Salutem.  Cum  nos  N.  N.  Com- 
missarius antedictus  rite  &  legitime  proceden'  quendam  P.  P.  Ecclesije 

parochialis  de Rectorem,  ad  diem,  horas,  locum  &  effectum  sub- 

scriptos,  subque  modo  &  forma  inferius  descriptis,  ad  petitionem  A.  B. 

.,.  ,       .^  ,    Promotoris  Officii  nostri  in  hac  parte  legitime  assignati. 
If  it  be  a  Vol-  r  o  o        » 

untarv  Promo-  ^Hcgantis  eumdem  P.  p.  alias  per  Mandatarium  in  hac 
ter,  then  Pro-  parte  legitime  deputatum,  animo  &  intentione  eum 
motoris  volun-  personaliter  citandi  ad  effectum  infra  scriptum  Ssepius 
tarii  in  hac  diiigenter  quaesitum  fuisse,  ita  tamen  latitasse  &  in  prae- 
P^"^  ^'  senti  latitare,  quominus  personaliter  apprehendi  vel  citari 

queat,  prout  Coram  nobis  debits  in  hac  parte  allegatum  extitit,  citand' 
&  ad  Judicium  evocand'  fore  decreverimus  justitia  mediante ;  vobis 
igitur  Conjunctim  &  divisim  Committimus  ac  fir  miter  injungendo  man- 
damus, quatenus  Citetis  seu  citari  facialis  peremptorii  prgefat'  P.  P. 
personaUter  si  sic  citari  vel  apprendi  poterit,  &  ad  eum  sic  citand' 
tutus  vobis  pateat  accessus  ;  alioquin  publicas  citationis  edicto  per  affixio- 
nem  praesentium  hujusmodi  in  Valvis  sive  Foribus  exterioribus  Domus 
solitae  habitationis  dicti  P.  P.  vel  in  Valvis  sive   Foribus    exterioribus 

Ecclesiae  parochialis  de palam  &  publice   in  sua  forma  Originali 

aliquandiu  proposit'  veraque  presentium  hujusmodi  Copia  ibidem  dimissa 
&  relicta  aliisque  viis,  modis  atque  mediis  legitimis,  quibus  melius  aut 
efficacius  de  Jure  quovismodo  poteritis,  ita  quod  hujusmodi  nostra 
Citatio   ad   ejus   sic   citandi   notitiam    de   verisimili    pervenire   valeat, 

Quod  legitime  compareat  coram  nobis  in  Ecclesia  parochiali  de 

locoque  judiciaU  ibidem  die die Mensis inter  horas 


METHODUS  PROCEDENDI.  3OI 

de  justitia  responsur'  certis  Articulis,  Capitulis,  sive  Interrogatoriis, 
meram  Animse  suae  Salutem  Concernen'  ulteriusque  factur'  &  receptur' 
quod  justum  fuerit  in  hac  parte,  sub  poena  Juris  &  Contemptus  et  quid 
in  praemissis  feceritis  nos  debits  Certificetis  una  cum  prsesentibus. 
Dat' die  Mensis Annoq«^  /  Dom. 

Indorsement :  This  Decree  was  duly  executed  by  affixing  the  same 
for  some  time  on  the  outward  Door  of  the  DwelHng-house  or  Habitation 

of  the  within-named  P.  P. or  on  the  pubUck  door  of  the  Parish 

Church    of and    afterwards    by   leaving   in    the   room   thereof   an 

Authentick  Copy  of  the  said  Decree,  the day  of in  the  Year 

of  our  Lord 

Juratis    fuit   prasfatus super    veritate    praemissonmi,   coram   me 

N.  N. 

N?  3.     Forms  of  Articles. 

The  General  Preface  to  all  Articles  against  Irregular  Clergymen. 

In  Dei  Nomine  Amen.  Nos  Reverendi  in  Christo  Patris  ac  Domini 
Domini  Edmundi  Permissione  Divina  London'  Episcopi  Commissarius 
legitime  constitutus.  Tibi  A.  B.  Clerico,  [add  here,  the  Place  of  which 
he  is  Incumbent]  Articulos,  Capitula,  sive  Interrogatoria  omnia  & 
singula,  meram  Animae  tuae  Salutem,  morumque  &  Excessuum  tuorum 

reformationem  &  correctionem  concernentia,  ad  promotionem ob- 

jicimus  &  articulamur,  conjunctim  &  divisim,  prout  sequitur. 

For  Officiating  without  License. 

Imprimis.  We  Article  and  Object  to  you  the  said  A.  B.  that  you  do 
know,  believe,  or  have  heard  say,  that  by  the  48*  Canon  of  the  Con- 
stitutions Ecclesiastical,  it  is  amongst  other  things  provided,  ordained, 
and  decreed,  as  followeth.  "  That  no  Curate  or  Minister  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  serve  in  any  place,  without  Examination  and  Admission  of 
the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  or  Ordinary  of  the  Place  having  episcopal 
Jurisdiction,  in  writing  under  his  Hand  and  Seal." 

2.  We  Article  and  Object  to  you  the  said  A.  B.  that  notwithstanding 
the  Premisses  in  the  next  precedent  Article  mention'd,  You  the  said  A.  B. 
have  on  divers  Sundays,  or  Lord's  days,  happening  within  the  months 
of  in  the  Year  of  our  Lord  and  more  particularly  on  Sunday 

the  day  of  on  all,  some,  or  one  of  the  said  Lord's  days  or 

Sundays  aforesaid,  without  Examination,  or  Admission,  or  Approbation 
of  the  Bishop  of  London  in  writing  under  his  Hand  and  Seal,  of  your 
Honesty,  Ability,  and  good  Conformity  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Laws  of  the 


302  APPENDIX  A. 

Church  of  England,  presumed  and  taken  upon  you  to  serve  the  Cure  of 
Souls  of  the  Parishioners  of  the  Parish  of  by  reading  the  Prayers 

of  the  Church  of  Efigland  by  Law  EstabUsh'd,  and  by  Preaching  of 
Sermons ;  and  performing  other  Duties ;  in  Contempt  of  the  Laws, 
Canons  and  Constitutions  ecclesiastical  aforesaid. 

3.  We  Article  and  Object  to  you  the  said  A.  B.  that  by  reason  of  the 
Premisses  in  the  foregoing  Articles  deduced,  you  have  incurred  canoni- 
cal Punishment  and  Censure,  and  were  and  are  by  us  and  our  Authority 
canonically  to  be  punished. 

For  marrying  without  Banns  or  License. 

Imprimis.  We  Article  and  Object,  that  you  the  said  A.  B.  do  know, 
believe,  or  have  heard,  that  by  the  Laws  and  Constitutions  Ecclesiastical, 
and  more  especially  by  the  62**  Canon,  it  is  among  other  things  pro- 
vided, ordain'd,  and  decree'd,  "  That  no  Minister,  upon  pain  of  Suspen- 
sion per  triennium  ipse  facto,  shall  celebrate  Matrimony  between  any 
Persons,  without  a  Faculty  or  License,  except  the  Banns  of  Matrimony 
have  been  first  publish'd  three  several  Sundays  or  Holydays  in  the  times 
of  Divine  Service  in  the  Parish  Churches  where  the  said  Parties  dwell, 
according  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer." 

2.  That  notwithstanding  the  Premisses,  you  the  said  A.  B.  in  the 
months  of  Anno  Dom.  have  celebrated  or  rather  Prophaned 
divers  Marriages  in  the  Parish  Church  aforesaid,  and  particularly  upon 

between  A.  B.  and  C.  D.  without  a  Faculty  or  License  in  that 
behalf  lawfully  granted  or  obtain'd,  or  Banns  of  Matrimony  first  duly 
Publish'd  ;  in  manifest  contempt  of  the  Laws,  Canons,  and  Constitutions 
aforesaid,  to  the  evil  example  of  all  good  Christians. 

3.  We  Article  and  Object  that  all  and  singular  the  Premisses  were 
and  are  true. 

4.  We  Article  and  Object  that  you  the  said  A.  B.  by  reason  of  the 
Premisses  have  incurr'd  the  Penalty  in  the  Canons  and  Constitutions 
Ecclesiastical  aforesaid  mention'd  and  were  and  are  to  be  suspended 
per  trienniinn. 

For  Neglect  in   Catechising. 

[This  may  be  applied  to  the  omitting  any  other  Duties  in  the  Church.] 

Imprimis,  We  Article  and  Object  to  you  the  said  A.  B.  that  you  were 
and  are  a  Minister  in  Holy  Orders  of  Deacon  and  Priest,  and  for 
years  at  least  have  been  and  are  Incumbent  of  the  Parish  Church  of 
and  during  all  the  said  time  have  had,  and  at  present  have, 


METHODUS  PROCEDENDI.  303 

the  Cure  of  Souls  of  the  Parishioners  and  Inhabitants  of  the  said  Parish 
of  and  for  and  as  such  a  Person  as  in  this  Article  is  described, 

you  the  said  A.  B.  have  been  and  are  commonly  accounted,  reputed, 
and  taken. 

2.  Item,  We  Article  and  Object  to  you  the  said  A.  B.  that  you  know, 
believe,  or  have  heard  say,  that  by  the  Laws,  Canons,  and  Constitutions 
Ecclesiastical  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  especially  by  the  59"*  Canon 
of  the  Canons  and  Constitutions  aforesaid,  it  is,  amongst  other  Things 
therein  order'd  and  appointed,  "  That  every  Parson,  Vicar,  or  Curate, 
upon  every  Sunday  and  Holy-day  before  Evening  Prayers,  shall  half  an 
Hour  or  more,  examine  and  instruct  the  Youth  and  ignorant  Persons  of 
his  Parish,  in  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Articles  of  the  Belief,  and  in 
the  Lord's  Prayer  and  shall  diligently  hear,  instruct,  and  teach  them 
the  Catechism  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer." 

3.  We  Article  and  Object,  that  notwithstanding  the  Premisses  in  the 
next  precedent  Article  mention'd,  and  that  you  the  said  A.  B.  have 
been  by  the  several  Parishioners,  divers  times  within  the  two  years  last 
past,  requested  to  hear,  instruct,  and  teach  the  Youth  and  ignorant 
Persons  of  the  said  Parish,  the  Catechism  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  upon  several  Sundays  and  Holy-days  within  the  time  afore- 
said, you  have,  in  contempt  of  the  said  Canon  and  Constitution,  wilfully 
neglected  your  Duty  herein,  to  the  great  Scandal  of  all  good  Christians. 

4.  We  Article  and  Object  to  you  the  said  A.  B,  that  by  reason  of  the 
Premisses  in  the  foregoing  Articles  mention'd  and  deduced,  you  have 
incurr'd  Ecclesiastical  Punishment  and  Censure,  and  were  and  are  by  us, 
and  the  Authority  given  to  us,  canonically  to  be  punished  and  corrected. 

For  Refusing  to  Bury. 
[The  like,  in  case  of  denying  or  delaying  to  baptise,  mutatis  mutandis.] 

Ij)iprij>iis,  We  Article  and  Object,  that  according  to  the  68""  Canon 
of  the  Constitutions  Ecclesiastical,  "  Whatever  Rector,  Vicar,  or  Curate 
of  any  Parish  shall  refuse  or  delay  to  bury  any  Corpse  that  is  brought 
to  the  Church  or  Church-yard  (convenient  Warning  being  given  him 
thereof  before)  shall  be  suspended  for  the  Space  of  three  Months." 

2.   Itefu,  We  Article  and  Object,  that,  notwithstanding  the  Premisses, 
you  the  said  A.  B.  having  convenient  Warning  thereof,  did  on  the 
Day  of  in  the  year  refuse  and  deny  to  bury  the  Corpse  of 

C.  D.  a  deceas'd  Parishioner,  and  did  not  bury  the  same,  but  did  refuse 
to  give  the  Corpse  of  the  said  C.  D.  Christian  Burial,  by  reading  the 


c 


304  APPENDIX  A. 

Form  prescrib'd  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  for  the  Burial  of  the 
Dead,  to  the  great  Neglect  of  your  Duty  and  the  Scandal  of  the  Chris- 
tian Profession. 

3.  We  Article  and  Object  to  you  the  said  A.  B.  that  by  reason  of  the 
Premisses,  you  are  and  ought  to  be  canonically  punish'd  and  corrected. 

For  Immoralities  of  Several  Kinds. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  #1 

That  in  the  Months  of  April,  May,  June,  July,  August,  Anno  Dom. 
in  all,  some,  or  one  of  the  said  Months,  you  the  said  A.  B.  have 
been  very  much  addicted  and  given  to  prophane  Cursing  and  Swearing ; 
and  have  several  times  in  a  most  wicked,  prophane,  and  impious  Manner 
spoke,  use,  and  uttered  several  wicked  and  execrable  Oaths  and  Curses 
within   the   Town  and   Village  of  and  this   is   true,   publick   and 

notorious ;  and  thereof  there  was  and  is  a  publick  Voice,  Fame,  and 
Report,  in  the  said  Town  and  Village. 

That  in  the  Months  of  April,  May,  June,  July,  August,  Anno  Dom. 
in  all,  or  some,  or  one  of  the  said  Months,  you  the  said  A.  B. 
did  resort  to  and  frequent  divers  Taverns  and  Ale-houses,  and  did 
remain  in  such  Taverns  and  Ale-houses  several  Hours  together,  and  at 
very  unseasonable  Times :  And  that  you  the  Said  A.  B.  during  the  said 
time,  was  much  addicted  and  given  to  excessive  Drinking,  and  have  been 
several  times  very  much  fudled  and  drunk  within  the  said  Town  and 
Village  ;  and  thereof  there  was  and  is  a  publick  Voice,  Fame,  and  Report, 
in  the  said  Village. 

N.  B.  One  or  other  of  these  Forms  of  Articles,  with  very  little  varia- 
tion, will  serve  for  any  Case  not  expressly  mention' d ;  adding  to  these, 
severally,  atid  to  others  of  the  like  kind,  the  ^*  Head  of  the  Articles  for 
Neglecting  to  Catechise. 

N°  4.    Compulsory  for  Witnesses. 

N.N.  Reverend!  in  Christo  Patris  ac  Domini  Domini  Edmundi  Per- 
missione  Divina  London'  Episcopi  Commissarius  legitime  constitutus, 
Universis  &  singulis  Clericis  &  Literatis  quibuscunque  in  &  per  totam 

Provinciam  de ubilibet  constitutis,  Salutem.     Cum  nos  in  quodam 

negotio  Officii  sive  Correctionis  quod  coram  nobis  in  Judicio  inter  A.  B. 
parochise Promotorem  dicti  Officii  ac  partem  hujusmodi  Negotium 

^  Passages  relating  to  other  immoralities  are  omitted. 


METHODUS  PROCEDENDl.  305 

promoven'  ex  una,  &  P.  P.  partem  contra  quam  idem  Negotium  promo- 
vetur  partibus  ex  altera,  vertitur  &  pendet  indecisum,  rite  &  legitime 
proceden'  quosdam  A.  B.  C.  D.  testes  (ut  asseritur)  valde  necessaries  ad 
proband'  contenta  in  quisbusdam  Articulis  alias  ex  parte  dicti  A.  B.  in 
eodem  negotio  datis,  ministratis  &  admissis,  qui  requisiti,  oblatisq?/^;  eas 
viaticis  expensis,  venire  recusabunt,  nisi  Compulsorium  ad  diem  horas 
locum  &  effectum  subscriptas  subq/^<f  /  modo  &  forma  inferius  descriptis 
ad  petitionem  partis  praefati  A.  B.  Citand'  &  ad  Judicium  evocand'  fore 
decreverimus  (Justitia  Mediante ;)  Vobis  igitur  conjunctim  &  divisim 
committimus,  ac  firmiter  injungendo  mandamus,  quatenus  Citetis  seu 
Citari  faciatis  peremptori^  praefator'  A.  B.  C.  D.    quod  compareant   & 

quilibet  coram  [compareant  coram]  nobis  in  Ecclesia  Parochiali 

locoque  judiciali  ibidem  die Mensis inter  horas  ejusdem  diei, 

juramentum  a  Testibus  prsestari  Solitum  &  Consuetum  subitur'  &  praesti- 
tur'  ac  Testimonium  Veritati  quam  in  hac  parte  noverint  perhibitur', 
ulteriusqz/i? /  factur'  &  receptur'  quod  justum  fuerit  in  hac  parte,  sub  poena 
Juris  &  Contemptus,  &  quid  in  Praemissis  feceritis  nos  debits  Certificetis 
una  Cum  Praesentibus  Datis die Mensis Anno  Domini 

Indorsement :  This  Compulsory  was  personally  serv'd  on  the  within- 
named  A.  B.  C.  D.  by  shewing  to  them  and  each  of  them  this  Original 
under  Seal,  and  delivering  to  them,  and  each  of  them,  at  the  same  time, 
an  English  note  containing  the  effects  thereof,  this  Day  of  in 

the  year  of  our  Lord  by  me 

Jurat'  fuit  praefatus  super  veritati  praemissorum  coram  me  N.  N. 

Commissario. 

The  Form  of  the  English  Note  is  to  be  thus  : 

You  are  hereby  cited  to  appear  on  the         Day  of         in  the  Church 

of  before  the  Reverend  Commissary,  to  give  your  Evidence 

in  a  Cause  of  Correction,  instituted  against  the  Reverend  Mr. 

Minister  of 

[The  Apparitor's  Name.] 

N"  5.   Sentence. 

In  Dei  Nomine  Amen.  Auditis,  visis,  &  intellectis  ac  pleneri^  &  mature 
discussis  per  nos  N.  N.  Reverendi  in  Christo  Patris  ac  Domini  Domini 
Edmundi  Permissione  Divina  London'  Episcopi  Commissarium  legitime 
Constitutum,  Mentis  &  Circumstantiis  cujusdam  Negotii  Officii  sive 
Correctione  Morum  quod  coram  nobis  in  Judicio  inter  A.  B.  parochiae 


306  APPENDIX  A. 

Promotum  officii  nostri  &  partem  dictum  negotium  promoven'  ex  una, 
&  P.  P.  Clericum  Rectorem  Rectorise  &  Ecclesias  parochialis  de 
partem  contra  quem  idem  Negotium  promovetur  partibus  ex  altera 
vertitur  &  pendet  indecis.  rite  &  legitime  procedend'  parteque  dicti  A.  B. 
Sententiam  ferri  &  justitiam  fieri ;  parte  vero  P.  P.  [Here  the  Judge  is 
to  say,  pars  P.P.  quid petis,  and  according  to  his  Prayer  to  fill  up  the 
Blank,  either  (Usually  understood  to  be  an  acquiescence  in  the  Sentence 
the  Judge  shall  give)  Justitiam,  or  (an  intention  to  appeal)  Sententiam] 
instanter  respective  postulan'  &  peten'  Rimatoque  primitus  per  nos  toto 
&  integro  processu  alias  coram  nobis  in  hujusmodi  negotio  habito  ac  facto 
&  diligentur  recensito,  servatisque  per  nos  de  jure  in  hac  parte  servandis, 
ad  nostrae  Sententiae  Definitivae  sive  nostri  finalis  Decreti  probationem 
in  hujusmodo  negotio  ferend'  sic  duximus  procedend'  fore,  &  procedimus 
in  hunc  qui  sequitur  modum :  Quia  per  Acta,  inactitata,  deducta, 
allegata,  exhibita,  proposita  &  probata  in  hujusmodi  negotio,  comperimus 
luculenter  &  invenimus,  partem  prsefati  A.  B.  Intentionem  suam  in  qui- 
busdam  Articulis,  Capitulis  sive  Interrogatoriis  ex  parte  sua  in  hoc 
negotio  datis  ministrat'  &  admissus,  aliisque  propositis  &  Exhibitis 
deductam,  quae  quidem  Articulos,  Capitula  sive  Interrogatoria  alioqua 
proposita  &  Exhibita  pro  his  lectis  &  infertis  habemus  &  haberi  volumus 
sufficienter  &  ad  plenum  quod  infra  pronunciand'  fundasse  &  probasse, 
nihilque  saltem  effectuale  ex  parte  aut  per  partem  praefati  P.  P.  fuisse  & 
esse  in  hac  parte  exceptum,  deductum,  allegatum,  exhibitum,  propositum, 
probatum,  aut  confessatum,  quod  intentionem  ejusdem  A.  B.  in  hac  parte 
elideret  sen  quomodolibet  enervaret :  Idcirco  Nos.  N.N.  Judex  ante- 
dictus,  Christi  nomine  primitus  invocato  ac  ipsum  solum  Deum  Oculis 
nostris  praeponentes  &  habentes,  d^que  &  cum  consilio  Reverendorum 
Virorum  C.  D.  &  E.  F.  cum  quibus  in  hac  parte  communicavimus  mature- 
que  deliberavimus,  praedictum  P.  P.  clericum  tempore  articulato  fuisse  & 
in  prassente  esse  Rectorem  Rectoriae  &  Ecclesiae  parochialis  de  ac 

temporibus  &  diebus  in  hac  [parte]  articulatis  [This  to  be  varied  as  the 
case  stands]  officium  suum  ministeriale  &  coram  animarum  parochia- 
norum  suorum  infra  parochiam  praedict'  inhabitan'  saepius  neglexisse,  seu 
saltem  secundum  Leges  Canones  &  Constitutiones  Ecclesiasticas  in  ea 
parte  editas,  provisas  &  promulgatas,  non  perfecisse,  juxtas  probationes 
legitimas  coram  nobis  in  hac  parte  judicialiter  habitas  &  factas,  pronuncia- 
mus,  decernimus  &  declaramus,  praefatum  igitur  P.  P.  pro  ejus  excessibus 
&  delictis  debits  &  canonic^  ac  juxta  Juris  in  ea  parte  exigentiam  in 
praemissis  corrigend'  &  puniend'  nee  non  ab  Officio  &  Beneficio  suis  per 
spatium suspenden'    fore    debere    pronunciamus,    decernimus    & 


METHODUS  PROCEDENDI. 


307 


declaramus  sique  per  Praesentes  suspendimus,  &  pro  sic  Suspense  in 
facie  Ecclesias  palam  &  publice,  denunciand'  declarand'  &  publicand' 
fore  etiam  pronunciamus,  decernimus  &  declarimus  necnon  prsefatum 
P.  P.  in  expensis  legitimis  ex  parte  &  per  partem  A.  B.  in  hujusmodi 
negotio  factis  &  faciendis  eidemque  seu  parte  suse  solvend'  condemnand' 
fore  &  condemnare  debere  etiam  pronunciamus,  decernimus  &  declara- 
mus, sique  per  praesentes  condemnamus,  easdemque  expensas  ad 
Summam  taxamus,  dictumque  P.  P.  ad  solvend'  seu  solvi  faciend'  realiter 
&  cum  effectu  prsenominato  A.  B.  seu  parti  suse  dictam  summam  prje- 
taxatam   citra   vel   ante  sub    poena   majoris    excommunicationis 

Sententiae  monend'  fore  decernimus ;  Quam  quidem  excommunicationis 
Sententiam  in  eundem  P.  P.  non  solventem  summam  praetaxatam  sub 
modo  &  forma  prsedictis,  Nos  Judex  antedictus  [ex  nunc  prout  ex  tunc 
&  ex  tunc  prout  ex  nunc]  ferimus  &  promulgamus  in  hiis  Scriptis  prae- 
fatumque  P.  P.  in  casu  praedict'  pro  .  .  .  sive  Excommunicato  in  facie 
Ecclesiae  palam  &  publice  denunciand'  &  declarand'  fere  decernimus 
per  hanc  nostram  Sententiam  Definitivam  sive  hoc  nostrum  finale  Decre- 
tum,  quam  sive  quod  ferimus  &  promulgamus  in  hiis  Scriptis. 

N.N. 

N"  6.   Appeal. 

In  Dei  Nomine  Amen.  Coram  vobis  N.  N.  Reverendi  in  Christo  Patris 
ac  Domini  Domini  Edmundi  Permissione  Divina  London'  Episcopi 
Commissario  legitime  constituto.  Ego  P.  P.  Clericus,  Incumbens,  Eccle. 
Paroch.  de  animo  appellandi,  deque  nullitate  &  iniquitate  omnium 

&  singulorum  infra  Scriptorum  aeque  principaliter  querelandi,  dico, 
allego,  &  in  hiis  Scriptis  in  Jure  propono.  Quod  licet  Ego  praefatus 
P.  P.  per  hos  annos  ult'   Elapsos   fuerim  &  sim   Clericus   Sacris 

Diaconatus  &  Presbyteratus  Ordinibus  insignitus,  ac  dictae  Ecclesiae 
parochialis  ritd  &  legitime  approbatus,  &  licentiatus,  &  admissus,  ac 
Curae  Animarum  parochianorum   sive   Inhabitantium  de  predict' 

per  totum  &  omne  tempus  praedict'  diligenter  secundum  talentum 
mihi  a  Deo  datum  inservierim,  vixerimque  sobrie  &  honeste,  nihiloque 
commiserim  aut  omiserim,  propter  quod  ad  aliquod  Forum  Ecclesiasti- 
cum  trahi,  aut  a  Cura  Animarum   Parochianorum   sive   Inhabitantium 

dictae  parochiae  de sive  executione  Officii  ministerialis  dictae  paro- 

chiae  de amoveri  aut  privari  debuerim  aut  debeam,  praefatus  tamen 

N.  N.  Reverendi  in  Christo  Patris  ac  Domini  Domini  Edmundi 
permissione  Divina  London'  Episcopi  Commissarius,  Juris  &  Judici- 
orum  ordine  in  hac  parte  minime   observato,  sed   penitus   spreto  & 


308  APPENDIX  A. 

postposito,  de  facto  cum  de  Jure  non  potuit  neque  debuit  (ejus  Rev- 
erentia  semper  salva)  utcunque  procedens,  Articulos  quosdam  prse- 
tensos,  Capitula,  sive  Interrogatoria,  vel  quandam  prsetensam  materiam 
omnino,  inconcluden'  &  de  jure  non  admittend'  ad  petitionem  .  .  . 
admisit,  ac  Testes  de  &  super  Articulis,  Capitulis,  sive  Interrogatoriis, 
vel  materia  praetensa  prsedict'  paribus  nuUitate  &  iniquitate  recepit  ac 
sententiam  quandam  praetensam  in  Scriptis  (uti  prgetenditur)  definiti- 
vam,  omnino  tamen  nullam,  &  de  Jure  prorsus  invalidam  pro  parte  & 
in  favorem  dicti  A.  B.  ac  contra  &  adversus  me  prsefatum  P.  P.  sine 
probationibus  sufficien'  &  de  jure  in  ea  parte  requisitis,  ac  contra  omnem 
Juris  ordinem,  de  facto  cum  de  Jure  non  potuit  neque  debuit,  legit,  tulit 
&  promulgavit,  per  quam  inter  alia  me  praefatum  P.  P,  ab  executione 
Ofificii  mei  Ministerialis,  sive  Cura  animarum  parochianorum  sive  Inhabi- 

tantium  Ecclesise  parochialis  de praedict'  sine  aliqua  causa  saltern 

legitima  (ejus  Reverentia  semper  salva)  utcunque  omnino  monuit, 
jussit,  h.  mandavit,  &  mihi  ad  inserviend'  curse  Animarum  Parochiano- 
rum sive  Inhabitantium  praedict'  sine  Causae  cognitione,  saltem  juxta 
Juris  in  hac   parte  exigentiam,  expresse   interdixit,  meque  ab  Officio 

&  Beneficio  meis  per  spatiam suspendend'   fore   decrevit,  &  me 

praefatum  P.  P.  in  expensis  praetensis  litis  ex  parte  dicti  A.  B.  factis, 
condemnavit,  easdemq?^i?  /  expensas  ad  summam  minis  excessivam  & 
immoderatam  taxavit,  in  praejudicium  meum  non  modicum  &  gravamen. 
Unde  Ego  praefatus  P.  P.  sentiens  me  ex  praemissis  Gravaminibus, 
Nullitatibus,  Qui  iniquitatibus,  Injustitiis,  &  Injuriis,  aliisq//^  ;  actis,  factis 
&  gestis,  iniquis,  ex  praetenso  processu  praefati  Reverendi  Commissarii 
Colligibilibus,  indebite  praegravari,  ac  loesum,  gravatum  &  injuriatum 
fuisse  &  esse,  ac  juste  timens  me  in  futurum  [invidiis]  loedi  &  graviari 
posse ;  ab  eisdem  &  eorum  quolibet,  &  praesertim  ab  admissione  quo- 
rundam  praetensorum  Articulorum,  Capitulorum,  sive  Interrogatiorum, 
contra  me  per  prsefat'  A.  B.  dat'  exhibit'  &  ministrator'  a  dicta  prae- 
tensa Sententia  ex  parte  dicti  A.  B.  ut  praefertur,  lecta,  lata,  &  pro- 
mulgata,  &  a  Condemnatione  me  P.  P.  in  expensis  ex  parte  A.  B.  uti 
praetenditur,  factis  &  faciendis,  a  minis  excessiva  &  immoderata  taxa- 
tione  earundem  praetensarum  expensarum,  &  a  Monitione  praetensa  in 
me  fact'  ad  desistend'  ab  executione  Officii  mei  Ministerialis  in 
per  spatium  ac  ab  omnibus  &  singulis  exinde  sequen'  ad  [Insert 

here  the  Names  of  the  Judges  of  Appeal  appointed  by  his  Majesty's 
Commission]  in  hiis  scriptis  appello,  deque  ;  nuUitate  &  iniquitate  omnium 
&  singulorum  praemissorum  aequ^  principaliter  dico  &  querelor,  [aposto- 
i6que ;]  peto  primo,  secundo  &  tertio,  instanter,  instantius,  &  instantissime 


A    COLONIAL   CLERGYMAN'S  LICENSE. 


309 


me  mihi  edi,  dari,  fieri,  tradi,  &  deliberari  cum  effectu  ;  &  protestor 
quod  non  sunt  quindecem  dies  adhuc  plen^  elapsi,  ex  quo  Gravamina 
praedicta  erant  mihi  illata.  Protestor  deniqa^,-  de  corrigendo  &  refor- 
mando  has  meas  Appellationem  &  Querelam  ipsasq^d-,-  in  meliorem  & 
competentiorem  formam  redigendo,  deque  intimando  easdem  omnibus 
&  singulis  quibus  Jus  exigit  in  hac  parte  intimari,  juxta  Juris  exigentiam 
&  Juris  peritorum  consilium,  prout  moris  fuerit. 

Interposita   fliit   hujusmodi   Appelatio  die   mensis  anno 

Domini  per  praefatum  P.  P.  qui  Appelavit,  Apostolos  petiit,  cse- 

teroque  ;  fecit  &  exercuit  in  omnibus  &  per  omnia,  prout  in  suprascripto 
Appelationis  Protocollo  continetur;  praesentibus  tunc  &  ibidem,  una 
cum  me  Notario  Publico  Subscripto 

Testibus         Ita        Tester 

Registarius. 

N.  B.  An  Appeal  may  as  properly  be  interpos'd  before  a  Notary 
Public,  as  in  the  Presence  of  the  Judge,  with  this  Alteration  only  in  the 
Beginning  thereof,  viz. 

In  Dei  nomine  Amen,  Coram  vobis  Notario  Publico,  publicaque 
&  authentica  persona,  ac  Testibus  fide  dignis  hie  praesentibus,  Ego 
P.  P.  &c. 

VII.     A    TYPICAL    LICENSE    FROM    THE    BISHOP    OF    LONDON 
TO   A   COLONIAL   CLERGYMAN. 

Hazard's  Pemisyhania  Register,  Vol.  III.  354.  For  the  form  of  the 
Commission  to  a  Commissary  see  Appendix  A,  No.  vi.,  pp.  294,  295. 

Edmund,  by  divine  permission,  Bishop  of  London,  to  our  beloved, 
in  Christ,  Robert  Jenney,  Dr.  of  Laws,  Clerk.     Greeting. 

We  do  hereby  give  and  grant  to  you,  in  whose  fidelity,  morals,  learn- 
ing, sound  doctrine,  and  diligence  we  do  fully  confide,  our  license  and 
authority  to  continue  only  during  our  pleasure,  to  perform  the  ministerial 
office  in  Christ  Church  in  Philadelphia,  in  the  Colony  of  Pennsylvania, 
in  reading  the  Common  Prayer,  and  performing  other  ecclesiastical 
duties  belonging  to  the  said  office,  according  to  the  form  prescribed  by 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  made  and  published  by  the  authority  of 
parliament,  and  the  canons  and  constitutions  in  that  behalf  lawfully 
established  and  promul[ga]ted,  and  not  otherwise  or  in  any  other  man- 
ner, (and  you  having  first  before  us  subscribed  the  articles,  and  taken 
the  oaths  which  in  this  case  are  required  to  be  subscribed  and  taken.) 


310  APPENDIX  A. 

In  witness  whereof  we  have  caused  our  Episcopal  Seal  to  be  hereto 
affixed,  dated  at  Whitehall,  the  31st  day  of  March  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  1742  and  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  our  translation. 

Edmund  (L.  S.)   London. 

VIIL  LETTER  FROM  A.  SPENCER  TO  BISHOP  SHERLOCK 
STATING  THE  RESULT  OF  HIS  MISSION  TO  THE  AMERI- 
CAN COLONIES  FOR  THE  PURPOSE  OF  SOUNDING  PUBLIC 
OPINION  ON   THE  QUESTION  OF  INTRODUCING  BISHOPS. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

June  12,  1749. 
My  Lord, 

I  made  it  my  business  to  converse  with  Several  Merchants  and 
Gentlemen  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York  about  what  your  Lordship 
mentioned  to  me.  Their  chief  objection  against  a  Suffragan  Bishop  is, 
That  he  will  be  invested  with  such  a  Power  as  would  be  inconsistent 
with  the  Privileges  of  the  People  in  those  Parts  and  even  interfere  with 
the  Rights  of  the  several  Proprietaries. 

I  replied,  that  I  believed  that  he  would  have  no  more  Power  over 
the  Laity,  than  what  the  Commissaries  in  the  Colonies  had  already ;  by 
that  the  Advantages  of  having  a  Suffragan  Bishop  would  be  so  great, 
that  I  could  not  think  any  man  of  Piety  and  virtue,  who  considered 
them,  would  oppose  so  laudable  a  Design.  Being  desired  to  give  my 
Reasons  I  proceeded  thus,  —  That  a  Suffragan  Bishop  being  on  the 
Spot  could  be  fully  satisfied  whether  the  Lives  and  Conversation  of  the 
Persons  desiring  to  be  admitted  to  the  Ministry,  were  in  Fact  as  men- 
tioned in  their  Recommendatory  Letters ;  and  that  he  would  be  such  a 
check  on  their  future  Behaviour,  as  to  deter  them  from  those  gross 
Irregularities,  which  the  Laity  are  too  apt  to  charge  them  with. 

In  a  Word,  I  found  the  Gentlemen  I  conversed  with  unanimously 
to  agree  that  if  the  Affair  was  on  such  a  Footing,  as  I  had  endeavored 
to  represent  it,  they  would  be  so  far  from  opposing  such  a  Design,  that 
they  would  rather  heartily  concur  with  your  Lordship  in  promoting  so 
good  a  Scheme. 

I  shall  always  think  myself  [happy]  in  receiving  and  obeying  your 
Lordship's  Commands.  If,  therefore,  my  Lord,  you  think  proper  to 
honour  me  with  any  more  Orders,  your  Lordship  may  direct  to 
Mr.  Richard  Burgiss  in  Rochester  where  I  may  be  [found]  till  the 
middle  of  next  month. 


BISHOP  SHERLOCK'S   CIRCULAR   LETTER,  1750.         311 

IX.  EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  REPORT  OF  A  COMMITTEE  FOR 
PREVENTING  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  BISHOPS  IN  THE 
COLONIES. 

From  a  Pamphlet  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

It  was  reported,  &  generally  believed  that  there  was  a  design  on  foot 
to  Erect  two  New  Bishoprics,  in  the  West  Indies,  this  the  Deputies 
thought,  and  have  since  been  well  assured,  would  be  very  disagreeable 
to  many  of  our  Friends  in  those  parts  &  highly  Prejudicial  to  the  Inter- 
est of  several  of  the  Colonies.  They  therefore  Appointed  two  of  their 
Body  to  wait  on  Some  of  his  Majesty's  principal  servants,  and  to 
acquaint  them  with  their  Sentiments  on  this  Subject,  which  was  accord- 
ingly Done  [this  was  in  1749],  &  the  Persons  deputed  were  very  civilly 
received,  &  whatever  the  Event  May  be,  the  Part  the  Deputation  has 
Acted  has  been  so  kindly  taken  abroad,  that  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  have  returned  them  their 
Thanks,  in  a  Message  signed  by  their  speaker.   .  .  . 

The  Committee  this  year  [1750]  again  Renewed  their  utmost  En- 
deavors to  prevent  the  introducing  a  Vicar  General,  or  Bishop  into 
America,  &  hitherto  the  Design  and  Attempt  of  that  kind  has  not 
Succeeded. 

X.  BISHOP  SHERLOCK'S  CIRCULAR  LETTER  TO  THE 
COMMISSARIES,  OF  SEPTEMBER  19,  1750,  WITH  SOME 
HITHERTO  UNPUBLISHED   REPLIES. 

Chandler's /i9/z«j'£'«,  Appendix,  166,  167,  and  the  Fulham  Manuscripts. 

I. 

Rev.  Sir, 

I  have  no  excuse  to  make  for  the  silence  I  have  observed  towards 
you  and  the  other  Commissaries  in  the  plantations,  but  only  this,  that  I 
waited  in  hopes  of  giving  you  an  account  of  a  settlement  of  Ecclesiastical 
affairs  for  the  Colonies,  in  some  shape  or  other.  I  have  been  far  from 
neglecting  the  affairs  of  your  Churches,  and  have  been  soliciting  the 
establishment  of  one  or  two  bishops  to  reside  in  proper  parts  of  the 
plantations,  and  to  have  the  conduct  and  direction  of  the  whole.  I  am 
sensible  for  myself  that  I  am  capable  of  but  little  service  to  those  dis- 
tant Churches,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  no  Bishop  residing  in  England 
ought  to  have,  or  willingly  to  undertake  this  province.     As  soon  as  I 


312  APPEND IX  A. 

came  to  the  See  of  London,  I  presented  a  Memorial  to  the  King  upon 
this  subject ;  which  was  referred  to  his  principal  officers  of  state  to  be 
considered.  But  so  many  difficulties  were  started,  that  no  report  was 
made  to  his  Majesty.  After  this  I  presented  a  petition  to  the  King  in 
Council  of  like  purport.  His  Majesty's  journey  to  Hanover  left  no  room 
to  take  a  resolution  upon  an  affair  that  deserves  to  be  maturely  weighed. 
This  lies  before  the  King  and  Council,  and  will,  1  hope,  be  called  for 
when  his  Majesty  returns  to  England,  this  is  a  short  state  of  the  case. 

You  will  see  by  this  I  am  not  yet  able  to  say  anything  as  to  the  effect 
of  these  apphcations  :  but  as  in  all  events  a  new  patent  must  be  granted, 
either  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  or  to  a  new  Bishop,  I  desire  to  be  in- 
formed by  you  how  the  jurisdiction  has  been  carried  on  during  the  time 
that  the  late  Bishop  of  London  acted  under  a  patent  from  the  Crown. 
I  know  the  jurisdiction  so  granted  extends  only  to  the  Clergy ;  but  with 
respect  to  this  there  seems  to  me  to  be  some  defects  in  the  patent. 
But  I  will  not  write  them  out  to  forestall  your  judgement,  but  shall  be 
much  obliged  to  you  for  any  observations  upon  this  head  which  your  ex- 
perience has  furnished  you  with  ;  which  I  shall  endeavor  to  make  use  of 
for  the  service  of  the  Churches  abroad. 

I  am.  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 


Reply  of  Commissary  Garden  of  South  Carolina,  to  Sherlock's 
Circular  Letter,  mainly  relating  to  the  Trl\l  of  George 
Whitefield. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 
My  Lord 

I  have  received  the  honour  of  your  Lordship's  Letter  of  20**^ 
Sept'"'  last  past,  in  which  you  are  pleased  to  mention  the  several  steps 
you  had  taken  in  soliciting  the  Establishment  of  one  or  two  Bishops  to 
reside  in  proper  Parts  of  &  govern  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  England 
in  America ;  &  also  the  uncertain  State  in  which  that  Affair  still  depends. 
Your  Lordship  is  also  pleased  to  desire  me  to  inform  you,  how  the 
Jurisdiction  was  carried  on  during  the  time  that  the  late  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don acted  under  a  Patent  from  the  Crown  ;  &  also  of  any  Observations, 
which  my  experience  may  have  furnished  me  with,  respecting  some 
Defects  which  your  Lordship  apprehends  in  the  said  Patent,  even  as 
restricted  only  to  the  Clergy. 

The  Episcopal  Churches  in  America,  are  greatly  beholden  to  your 


GARDEN'S  REPLY  TO  SHERLOCK. 


313 


Lordship,  for  your  Pious  &  Assiduous  endeavors  to  obtain  for  them  so 
essential  a  part  of  their  Being,  as  that  of  a  Bishop  or  Bishops  personally 
presiding  over,  &  governing  them.  In  their  present  Condition  they  are 
certainly  without  a  parallel  in  the  Christian  Church,  in  any  age  or  coun- 
try from  the  beginning. 

When  my  late  Lord  of  London,  sent  me  his  Commission  appointing 
me  his  Commissary,  pursuant  to  his  Patent  from  the  Crown,  he  there- 
with also  sent  me  some  printed  Papers,  intitled  Methodus  Procedendi 
contra  Clericos  Jrregulares  in  Plantationibus  Americanis  ;  (which  doubt- 
less your  Lordship  will  find  among  the  records  of  your  See)  containing, 
first,  his  Lordship's  Appointment  of  a  Commissary ;  2"^'^  his  Directions  to 
the  Commissary,  3*^'^  The  Method  of  Proceeding  &c  4*'^  Instruments,  & 
other  Things,  referrd  to  in  the  Method  of  Proceeding ;  being  Extracts 
from  Clark's  praxis,  Oughton's  Ordo  Judiciorum  &c.  Pursuant  to  the 
said  Directions,  I  always  held  an  Annual  Visitation  of  the  Clergy  of  this 
Province,  on  the  2°'*  Wednesday  after  Easter-day  at  Charlestown  ;  &  took 
that  Opportunity  punctually  to  comply  with  all  the  other  Particulars  of 
his  Lordship's  5*  &  following  Directions. 

Whether  any  of  his  Lordship's  Commissaries  in  the  other  Colonies, 
ever  Preceded  against  any  irregular  Clergymen  I  know  not ;  but  as  to 
myself  I  proceeded  against  4,  viz',  Wintely,  Morrii,  Fulton,  &  Whitefield. 
The  two  Former  chose  to  resign  their  Livings  rather  than  stand  their 
Trials ;  &  the  two  Latter  I  suspended ;  the  one  (Fulton)  from  his  Office 
&  Benefice  ;  &  the  other  (Whitefield)  only  from  his  Office,  being  a  Vaga- 
bond Clergyman  having  no  Benefice  to  be  suspended  from. 

In  all  these  proceedings  (my  Lord)  I  did  not  observe  any  Defect  in 
the  Royal  Patent,  but  several  Difficulties  occurred  &  perplexed  me  with 
respect  to  the  Laws.  On  Process  instituted  against  Whitefield,  for  Trans- 
gressing the  38'''  Canon  of  the  Church,  or  as  a  Revolter  after  Subscrip- 
tion, he  exhibited  in  writing  recusatio  Judicis  or  a  refusal  of  me  for  his 
Judge ;  alledging  for  Causes,  that  I  was  his  Enemy,  &  had  printed  and 
preached  against  him  with  great  Bitterness  &  Enmity ;  and  referring  the 
Same  to  Six  Arbiters,  Three  of  whom  he  named  on  his  part,  who  were 
two  Independents,  &  one  french  Calvinist,  &  all  of  them  his  Zealous 
Admirers.  On  this  Event  several  Difficulties  occurr'd  as  vizf  First, 
Whether,  as  the  Law  only  prescribes  probi  viri  i.e.  as  explain'd,  indiffe- 
rentes  &  docti,  for  arbiters,  I  might  not  reject  those  named,  as  non  indif- 
ferentes,  for  the  reasons  above  mention'd.  (2*"^)  Admitting  that  I  had 
taken  no  exception  to  the  Three  persons  nam'd,  but  had  nam'd  Three 
others  on  my  part  to  join  them  for  Arbiters,  put  the  Case  (as  it  cer- 


314  APPENDIX  A. 

tainly  would  have  turn'd  out)  of  their  Coming  to  no  agreement  or  Con- 
clusion, what  then  was  to  be  done?  or  what  was  to  become  of  the 
principal  Cause.  The  Laws  are  silent  as  to  such  a  Case,  nor  do  I  find  it 
either  put  or  resolv'd  by  Clark,  Oiighto?i,  Conset,  or  any  other.  I  could 
neither  see  nor  be  advised,  that  it  was  in  my  power  to  proceed  in  Case 
of  their  non  Agreement,  &  so  the  Cause  instituted  must  have  dropt,  & 
Whitefield,  escaped  without  Censure.  Again  (3**'^)  supposing  the  Arbi- 
ters had  agreed  and  given  Judgment  against  me,  who  in  that  Case 
should  be  Judge  in  the  Cause  instituted?  I  find  this  Query  put  by 
the  above  nam'd  Authors,  but  not  otherwise  resolv'd  than  by  a  dicunt 
aliqui ;  arbitri  recusationis  :  And  this  again  Queried,  quo  Jure?  &  so 
the  point  left  moot  or  undecided.  Amidst  these  Difficulties,  and  for 
reasons  inserted  at  length  in  the  Proceedings  transmitted  to  my  late 
Lord  of  London,  I  repell'd  his  Recusation ;  on  which  he  interposed 
an  Appeal,  to  the  Lords  named  in  the  Royal  Patent,  &  had  the  same 
granted  him  ;  but  which  he  either  wilfully  or  ignorantly  neglected  to 
Prosecute  until  the  Juratory  Term  assaign'd,  viz'  the  space  of  Twelve 
Months  was  expired,  &  then  the  Process  against  him  was  carried  on 
here.  Witnesses  were  Examined  and  Sentence  of  Suspension  from  his 
Office  was  pronounced,  &  still  stands  in  Force  against  him.  —  But  this 
Sentence  having  had  no  effect  upon  him  for  his  Reformation  and  Sub- 
mission, I  should  have  long  since  proceeded,  pursuant  to  the  Canon, 
to  that  of  Excommunication,  but  for  a  Defect  in  the  Law,  which  would 
have  rendered  it  as  ineffectual  as  the  other,  viz',  that  the  Writ  de  Ex- 
communicato capiendo  could  not  be  issued  against  him  here,  because  the 
Statutes  of  Queen  Eliza''*  on  which  that  Writ  is  grounded,  do  not 
extend  to  America. 

These  my  Lord,  were  the  Difficulties  which  occurr'd  to  me,  in  the 
Execution  of  my  late  Lord  of  Londons  Jurisdiction  in  this  Province. 
And  I  am  firmly  of  Opinion,  that  if  they  are  not  some  way  or  other 
removed,  a  Commissary's  Office  or  Authority  will  be  of  little  avail 
against  any  Irregularities  of  the  Clergy.  For,  First,  as  it  will  be  easy  for 
any  irregular  Clergyman  to  except  against  the  Commissary  for  his  Judge 
by  alledging  Enmity,  specially  on  a  Prosecution  ex  Officio  Mero,  so  nei- 
ther will  it  be  a  difficult  matter  for  him,  to  name  Two  or  Three  persons 
for  Arbiters,  who  will  stand  it  aught  against  the  Commissary,  as  an  unfit 
person  for  his  Judge,  and  so  by  a  disagreement  of  the  Arbiters,  Suspend 
the  Arbitration  without  decision,  &  consequently,  as  far  as  I  can  per- 
ceive, defeat  the  whole  process.  Or  (2*^!^)  In  case  the  Arbiters  decide 
against  the  Commissary,  the  Law  not  providing  who  shall  succeed  for 


GARDEN  TO  GIBSON,  1741.  315 

Judge  to  carry  on  the  Process,  it  must  therefore  also  of  course  drop  & 
come  to  nothing. 

Concerning  dilapitation  either  of  Churches  or  Parsonage  Houses,  I 
had  no  occasion  to  inquire,  for  by  a  particular  Law  of  this  Province  the 
Clergy  are  exempted  from  that  charge  which  is  defray*^  partly  by  the 
Publick  &  partly  by  the  Parishioners.  But  whether,  had  there  been  oc- 
casion, I  could  have  carried  on  a  Process  for  dilapitation  I  am  doubt- 
ful ;  the  Patent  not  being  so  explicit  on  that  head,  &  seeming  rather  to 
confine  the  Authority  to  the  inquirend'  de  7norihus.  —  But  it  is  high  time 
to  put  an  end  to  this  long  Epistle  containing  all  I  can  offer  in  answer  to 
your  Lordship's ;  &  therefore  humbly  craving  your  Blessing  &  Protec- 
tion, I  remain 

My  Lord 

Your  Lordship's  most 
dutiful  Son  &  Obed'  Humble  Serv' 
So  Caro*  A  Garden 

Charlestown  Feby'^  i"  1750. 

3- 

Commissary  Garden  to  Bishop  Gibson,  January  28,  1741. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

I  have  herewith  transmitted  to  your  Lordship,  an  authentick  Copy 
of  my  farther  &  final  Proceedings  against  Mr.  Whitefield,  by  w""*^  I  have 
suspended  him  from  his  Office  pursuant  to  the  38*  Canon.  I  had  kept 
the  Court  on  regular  Adjournments  for  five  months  after  the  expiration 
of  the  Juratory  Term,  waiting  for  some  Order  or  other  in  the  Affair. 
But  understanding  by  your  Lordship's  Letter,  that  Whitefield  had 
deserted  his  Appeal  (notwithstanding  his  solemn  oath,  in  open  Court, 
bona  fide  to  prosecute  it)  I  saw  it  my  Duty  to  proceed  to  a  definitive  Sen- 
tence, w"''  accordingly  I  have  done ;  &  w'^''  if  the  Lords  Appellees  ap- 
prove not,  they  may  annul ;  &  either  way  the  affair  will  be  at  an  end  as 
far  as  I  can  carry  it  to  any  effect  on  this  side  of  the  Water. 

I  have  wrote  your  Lordship  so  fully  on  the  Subject  of  the  unruly  Man, 
&  the  Prosecution  I  have  now  finished,  in  my  former  Letters,  that  I  have 
nothing  farther  to  add  save  only  that  I  could  have  wished,  that  the  Coun- 
cil your  Lordship  employed  had,  on  the  Expiration  of  the  Juratory  Term, 
transmitted  a  proper  certificate  from  the  Offices,  that  Whitefield  had 
deserted  his  appeal ;  w"''  (if  I  am  rightly  informed)  is  the  Method  in 
Cases  of  appeals  in  Civil  Matters  from  America,  and  would  not  have 
been  denied  them. 


3l6  APPENDIX  A. 


Replies  of  the  Two   Leading  Episcopal  Clergymen  of  Boston  to 
Bishop  Sherlock's  Circular  Leti-er. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 


Rev.  Timothy  Cutler,  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  to  the  Bishop  of 

Lofidon. 

April  24,  1 75 1. 

Your  Lordship's  Letter  of  September  19"*  containing  a  Copy  of  a 
general  Letter  from  your  Lordship  to  the  Commissaries  of  our  late  Right 
Reverend  Diocesan,  I  received  just  at  the  end  of  February  last.  ...  I 
doubt  I  can  relate  nothing  in  the  Jurisdiction  exercised  here  during  the 
time  the  late  Bishop  of  London  acted  under  a  Patent  from  the  Crown. 
Once  our  Commissary  went  to  New  London,  upon  some  business  about 
the  late  reverend  Mr.  Morris  :  but  Mr.  Morris  voluntarily  ended  all  by 
quitting  the  Place.  The  Commissary  also  went  to  Newbury  upon  some 
Difficulties  about  a  new  Church  there  :  but  there  was  no  formal  Hearing, 
nor  is  there  any  Issue.  The  unhappy  Case  of  Mr.  Roe  belonging  to  the 
Chapel  [King's  Chapel]  might  have  had  a  formal  Consideration  if  he 
had  not  immediately  departed  to  England.  And  this  quashed  the  Con- 
sideration of  another  affair  relating  to  him,  which  his  Lordship  referred 
to  the  Cognizance  of  y*  Commissary  of  South  Carolina,  to  which  Mr. 
Roe  was  ordered  to  repair.  As  to  that  of  Mr.  Whitefield  judicially  con- 
sidered by  that  Commissary,  your  Lordship  may  have  a  perfect  account 
from  him  at  your  pleasure.  I  can  add  no  more  upon  this  head,  than 
that  upon  the  Commissaries'  call,  there  have  been  annual  meetings  of 
the  Clergy,  mainly  taken  up  in  relating  the  State  of  our  Parishes,  and  in 
consulting  and  advising  one  another.  And  I  cannot  suppose  that  what 
I  have  mentioned  respecting  New  England  hath  raised  any  uneasy 
Speculations  or  Remarks  among  our  Dissenters. 

******* 

I  have,  my  Lord,  with  several  of  my  Brethren,  subjoined  to  the  Pro- 
posals of  sending  Bishops,  one  or  more,  to  reside  in  America,  our  humble 
Opinion  of  that  affair ;  and  beg  leave  to  add  further  what  follows  : 

That  in  all  Probability,  this  Objection,  tho'  not  openly  avow'd,  yet 
not  very  latent,  outweighs  all  the  rest.  That  the  Church  of  England  grow- 
ing very  much  in  its  imperfect  State,  would  much  more  grow,  compleated 


CANER    TO  SHERLOCK,  1731.  317 

by  the  Residence  of  a  Bishop ;  that  our  increase  would  be  out  of  the 
Societies  of  the  Dissenters,  perhaps  to  the  breaking  up  of  some  of  them, 
or  to  their  greater  Burden  in  supporting  of  them ;  that  these  Colleges 
would  be  Nurseries  of  Episcopal  Clergymen ;  That  many  Churchmen 
scattered  throughout  almost  all  our  Towns,  but  very  much  concealed  for 
the  sake  of  a  quieter  and  more  agreeable  Subsistence  among  their  neigh- 
bors, might  take  heart  to  shew  themselves ;  and  that  civil  Preferments 
would  not  be  so  confin'd  as  they  are  at  present. 

Wherever  Bishops  are  placed  in  America,  we  ought  all  to  thank  God 
for  it.  But  I  lay  myself  very  low  for  your  Lordship's  pardon,  [  ]  of  a 
few  Remarks  upon  Barring  the  Settlement  of  Bishops  in  places  where 
the  Government  is  in  the  hands  of  Dissenters  as  in  New  England  &c. 

That  in  these  Places,  the  Members  of  the  Church,  and  the  Church 
itself  is  peculiarly  injured ;  and  there  we  eminently  need  a  Bishop  to 
appear  in  our  Favor,  and  upon  Occasion  to  represent  our  Case 
home. 

That  universal  experience  tells  us.  That  the  nearer  the  Church  is  to 
Dissenters,  the  most  it  prevails,  their  Prejudices  wear  away,  misrepre- 
sentations are  taken  off,  or  prevented.  People  better  know  what  the 
Church  is,  and  better  esteem  it.  This  is  evident  from  the  monstrous 
Ideas  of  our  Church  in  our  distant  Country  Towns,  which  have  no  place 
in  those  bordering  on  us. 

n. 

Rev.  Henry  Caner,  Rector  of  Khig's  Chapel,  to  the  Bishop  of 
London. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

May  6,  1751. 
I  had  the  Honour  of  your  Lordship's  Letter  of  the  19*  September 
last,  with  a  Copy  inclosed  of  one  written  to  the  late  Bishop  of  London's 
Commissaries  :  In  which  your  Lordship  required  the  Information  of 
your  Clergy  in  these  Parts  "  how  the  Jurisdiction  has  been  carried  on 
during  the  Time  that  the  late  Bishop  of  London  acted  under  a  Patent 
from  the  Crown."  As  I  have  never  seen  a  Copy  of  the  late  Bishop's 
Patent  nor  even  of  the  Instructions  given  to  his  Commissary  in  this 
District  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  say  anything  on  the  Subject.  Indeed 
it  has  been  generally  apprehended  here,  that  the  late  Commissary  had 
no  Authority  to  act  at  all,  as  I  am  told  he  never  qualified  himself,  by 


3i8  APPENDIX  A. 

exhibiting  his  Commission  to  the  Governor,  or  other  proper  Ofificer,  and 
by  taking  Oath  before  such  Ofificer  for  the  due  Execution  of  his  Trust 
which  I  think  the  Laws  here  require  of  every  Person  in  cases  of  this  or 
a  Hke  Nature.  .  .  . 

[Caner,  hke  Cutler  (see  above,  p.  317),  objects  to  any  concession 
whereby  no  bishops  would  be  sent  to  New  England ;  but  is  willing  to 
concede  that  their  jurisdiction  shall  not  extend  to  the  laity.] 


Reply  of  Dr.  Jenney,  Commissary  of  Pennsylvania,  to  Sherlock's 
Circular  Letter. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

Dated  at  Philadelphia  May  23,  175 1. 
May  it  please  your  Lordship 

It  was  the  15  of  this  Month  before  I  had  the  Honor  to  receive 
your  L'^ships  Letter  by  Mr.  Craig,  dated  at  London  y"  20""  of  Sep**"  1750, 
wherein  your  L*^ship  condescends  to  acquaint  me  with  your  Endeavors 
to  settle  y^  Ecclesiastical  Affairs  of  y''  Colonies,  particularly  your  Appli- 
cation to  his  Majesty  for  y'^  Establishment  of  two  Bishops,  which  lies  still 
before  y*"  Council  undetermined. 

Your  L"*ship  commands  me  to  inform  you  how  y*"  Jurisdiction  has 
been  carried  on  for  y**  Time  past,  of  which  I  am  afraid  my  Account  will 
not  be  very  aggreable.  The  patent  of  y*"  late  B^  did  not  seem  to  justify 
his  Commissary  in  any  Judicial  Proceeding  :^  The  Laity  laughed  at  it, 
&  y''  Clergy  seemed  to  dispise  it,  nor  did  there  appear  at  Home  a  Dis- 
position to  shew  any  Regard  to  it :  The  Commissary  was  no  otherwise 
regarded  there  than  to  be  made  y**  Instrument  of  conveying  Letters, 
Books  &c  to  y^  Missionaries,  as  he  lives  conveniently  for  that  purpose  in 
y^  Chief  place  of  Commerce  where  y®  Ships  from  &  for  London  are  for 
y"  most  part  only  to  be  found.  One  Instance  of  y*'  Laity's  Contempt  of 
my  Commission  I  have  found  in  two  gentlemen  (one  a  Lawyer)  who 
insulted  me  most  rudely  for  not  condemning  a  Clergyman  unheard,  & 
refusing  to  send  to  y"  hon'''*'  Society  their  charge  against  him  without 
giving  him  an  Opportunity  (which  he  earnestly  requested)  of  justifying 
himself  against  it.  Your  L'^ship  observes  that  y"  B"  of  Londons  Juris- 
diction was  by  y"  Patent  extended  only  to  y"  Clergy  :  But  even  y''  Clergy 
seemed  not  to  take  much  Notice  of  it.     One  has  given  me  under  his 

1  Cf.  Commissary  Garden  of  South  Carolina  on  this  head,  above,  p.  313. 


JENNEY  TO  SHERLOCK,  1751.  319 

Hand  that  my  Commission  from  y*"  '&  was  far  from  being  unexception- 
able :  Another  spoke  of  it  with  such  a  sneer  as  plainly  Discovered  a 
Contempt :  Both  of  these  were  in  my  District,  but  one  of  them  is  now 
dead.  Besides  y"  Clergy  Settled  here  we  have  some  Ministers  whom  we 
may  call  Vagabonds  having  come  without  License  or  appointed  Settle- 
ment. There  are  also  some  who  come  hither  for  their  Health  (chiefly 
from  y''  hotter  Climates)  Some  of  these  are  exceeding  faulty  in  their 
Behaviour,  &  some  deistical  both  in  their  preaching  &  Conversation. 
And  although  many  of  these  who  do  so  exceedly  misbehave  do  not 
belong  to  this  province ;  Yet  if  y"  Commissary  does  not  take  notice  of 
them  he  is  laughed  at  by  y'"  profane,  &  blamed  by  those  who  are  religious  : 
But  he  is  obliged  to  bear  y"  Reflections  of  both  through  an  Apprehension 
that  his  Commission  will  not  bear  him  out  if  he  should  proceed  against  them. 

There  is  also  a  great  Inconvenience  arising  to  our  ministers,  & 
Irregularities  proceeding  y*'  Licenses  for  marriages  being  issued  out  of  y** 
Office  of  y"  Governors  Secretary  &  directed  to  any  protestant  Minister : 
Some  Justices  of  y""  Peace  pretend  that  this  Direction  includes  them,  & 
upon  that  pretence  take  upon  them  to  marry.  In  our  neighboring  (y** 
Jersies)  they  are  expressly  directed  to  any  protestant  Minister  or  Justice 
of  y°  Peace,  though  some  of  y*"  latter  are  very  mean  Fellows,  Butchers, 
and  low-lifed  Traders,  &  some  of  y**  best  of  them  are  but  Common 
Farmers  and  plow  men.  And  by  these  means  it  comes  to  pass  that  we 
have  very  irregular  &  unlawful  marriages  amongst  us. 

It  is  said  of  Mariland  that  y"  L**  Baltimore  will  not  suffer  y"  B^  of 
London's  Commissary  even  to  read  his  Commission  in  that  Province  : 
And  as  to  this  Province  of  Pennsylvania ;  one  of  y"  greatest  men  in  our 
Government  asserted  in  Vestry,  That  our  Church  is  only  tolerated  by 
M'.  Penn  y^  Proprietour ;  &  he  thinks  himself  justified  in  saying  so  by 
y*"  Words  of  that  clause  in  y*^  Proprietours  Charter  which  was  put  in  for 
y"  Security  of  our  Church  and  he  proceeded  so  far  as  to  assert  that 
neither  y*"  Cannons  nor  Rubrick  have  any  Force  in  this  province. 

As  y"  Jersies  are  divided  from  this  province  by  nothing  but  y"  River 
Delaware,  &  this  City  stands  upon  y"  Banks  of  that  River,  I  submit  to 
your  L'^ship  whether  it  would  not  be  more  convenient  for  y"  Missionaries 
of  West  Jersey  next  adjoining  to  be  annexed  to  Pennsylvania  under  one 
Commissary,  than  to  New  York  which  is  at  so  great  a  Distance. 

It  wou'd  be  of  considerable  Service  to  y"  Church  &  her  Ministers 
here  to  find  some  means  to  make  y"  Governors  hearty  in  our  Interest. 

I  cannot  recollect  at  present  anything  more  that  has  fallen  in  with 
my  Observation  with  Regard  to  that  Part  of  the  Colonies  that  I  have 


320  APPENDIX  A. 

been  concerned  with  as  the  Bishop  of  Londons  Commissary  to  trouble 
your  L'^ship  with. 

I  pray  God  to  give  Success  to  your  L^ships  pius  endeavors  for  the 
Service  of  the  Church. 
And  I  am, 

May  it  please  your  L''ship, 
Y'  L^'ships 

Most  dutiful  Son  &  obedient 
humble  Servant 

Rob'^  Jenney. 

XI.  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  THE  BISHOP  OF  LONDON 
AND  THE  ENGLISH  MINISTRY,  RELATIVE  TO  THE  INTRO- 
DUCTION OF  BISHOPS  INTO  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES, 
1749-50. 

From  the  Newcastle  Papers  in  the  British  Museum,  Home  Series,  32719-21. 

I. 

Thomas  Sherlock,  Bishop  of  London,  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle. 

September  3,  1749. 

I  will  own  to  your  Grace,  what  my  fatal  mistake  was,  I  thought,  (and 
I  have  not  changed  my  opinion)  y'  I  had  so  much  of  his  Mat^'  favours ; 
and  was  in  hopes  that  I  had  so  much  interest  in  y''  Grace  that  I  might 
prevail  to  have  Bps  abroad  &  some  help  for  myself  at  home  —  But  if 
I  ask  too  much  in  desiring  assistance,  I  am  sure  I  shall  undertake  too 
much  to  enter  upon  the  business  of  America  without  assistance,  and  I 
hope  y'  Grace  will  obtain  the  King's  leave  for  me  to  confine  myself  to 
the  care  of  my  proper  diocese  of  London.  I  will  doe  nothing  to  dis- 
oblige the  King,  I  owe  too  much  to  him.  But  I  hope  his  Majesty  will  (I 
doubt  not  but  he  will)  consider  the  case  of  an  old,  and,  give  me  to 
say,  a  faithful  servant. 

2. 
Duke  of  Newcastle  to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

September  5,  1749. 

The  appointing  Bishops,  ...  is  a  great,  &  national  consideration ; 
had  been  long  under  the  Deliberation  of  great,  &  wise  men,  heretofore ; 
and  was,  by  them  laid  aside ;  and  ought  not  to  be  resumed,  for  personal 


SHERLOCK  TO,  NEWCASTLE,  i74g.  321 

considerations  ;'  or,  at  all,  be  looked  upon  in  that  Light.  Whatever  my 
Opinion  is  or  may  be,  upon  that  Point ;  I  am  sure  you  cannot  think.  It 
can  proceed  from  any  want  of  Friendship,  or  Regard  for  you. 

3- 

Bishop  of  London  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle. 

September  7,  1749. 

I  reckoned  (perhaps  misreckoned)  that  I  was  proposing  a  scheme 
for  the  publick  serznce,  to  enable  not  only  myself  but  every  Bp.  of  London 
to  execute  with  some  tolerable  degree  of  care,  the  extensive  commission 
he  is  to  have  in  his  Majesties  foreign  dominions,  in  the  due  Execution 
of  w"**,  the  King's  Honour  is  concerned  ;  and  w'"''  the  Religion  of  the 
Country,  the  prosperity  of  the  Ch  :  of  England  ;  always  esteemed  the 
Bulwark  ag^'  Popery ;  the  members  whereof  are  the  only  set  of  Xtians 
in  the  King's  dominions  who  own  the  Supremacy  of  [the  Crown] 

With  respect  to  the  Settlmt  of  Bps  abroad,  your  Grace's  Observation 
has  great  justness  and  Dignity  in  it :  that  it  ought  not  to  be  resumed  on 
a  Personal  Consideration. 

I  am  sensible  that  I  have  shewn  so  much  concern  for  the  success  of 
this  scheme,  and  have  amongst  other  considerations  so  often  suggested 
that  the  care  of  the  plantations  was  too  much  for  one  Bp  to  discharge 
with  benefit  to  others  or  credit  to  himself,  and  brought  with  it  an 
Expense,  not  reasonably  imposed  on  one  Bp  who  had  no  more  rela- 
tion to  the  plantations  than  others  had ;  That  I  may  well  have  fallen 
under  the  Suspicion  of  y'  Grace,  &  others,  that  my  Concern  in  this  case 
has  been  selfish.  But  whatever  handle  I  may  [have]  given  to  such  sus- 
picions, yet  I  must  have  lived  to  little  purpose,  if  I  am  capable  of  think- 
ing that  so  great  &  material  an  affair  was  to  be  determined  by  regard 
to  me,  or  any  other  man  living :  I  did  indeed  flatter  myself  that  I 
shou'd  not  be  the  worst  Solliciter  in  the  case  for  the  favour  I  had  with 
y"'  Grace.  —  But  let  not  the  reasons  of  real  weight  be  overlooked,  & 
sink  under  suspiceons,  I  will  not  trouble  you  with  setting  forth  these 
Reasons  :  But  permit  me  to  say  one  thing ;  that  there  is  not,  and  I 
think,  there  never  was,  a  Xtian  Ch  :  in  the  world,  in  the  condition  the 
Ch  :  of  England  is  now,  in  the  Plantations ;  obliged  to  send  from  one 
side  of  the  World  to  the  other,  to  get  ministers  ordained  to  officiate  in 
their  Congregations,  —  As  to  the  reasons  relating,  (not  to  myself  only, 
but)  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  I  have  said  no  more  than  my  Predecess^ 
said  daily  to  me  &  to  many  others  :  he  was  as  able  to  dispatch  business. 


322  APPENDIX  A. 

as  any  who  were  before  him,  and  as  any  who  may  probably  come  after 
him,  but  he  felt  &  complained  of  the  burden. — There  is  one  kind  of 
selfishness  w'^'*  has  perhaps  influenced  me ;  or  has  more  of  vanity  than 
Interest  in  it :  I  shou'd,  indeed  think  it  the  glory  of  my  life,  if  I  c'd  be 
the  instrument,  even  in  the  lowest  degree  of  putting  the  Ch.  abroad 
upon  a  true  and  primitive  foot. 

As  to  the  Views  I  have  had  in  this  whole  affair,  I  have  nothing  to 
accuse  myself  if  in  the  warmth  of  prosecuting,  I  have,  either  in  speaking 
or  writing  on  this  subject,  so  far  forgot  myself  or  y''  Grace,  as  to  have 
fallen  into  any  Impropriety,  I  hope  you  will  pardon  it ;  and  permit  me 
to  assure  you  that,  tho'  you  have  many  abler  friends,  you  have  none 
more  heartily  &  sincerely  concerned  to  your  honour  &  Prosperity,  or 
more  sensible  of  your  favours  than,  etc. 

4- 

Bishop  of  London  to  Duke  of  Newcastle. 

March  23,  1749/50. 
My  Lo}'d  Duke, 

Your  Grace  will  receive  together  with  this,  a  Representation  of 
the  State  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America,  which  I  intend  to  lay 
before  the  King  in  Council.  At  present  the  Church  there  is  without 
any  Government  or  Inspection,  &  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  put  an 
end  to  this  State  which  will  be  a  State  of  Confusion.  I  laid  the  Repre- 
sentation before  my  Lord  Chancellor,  and  tho'  he  has  difficulties  as  to 
the  main  point,  yet  I  had  the  Satisfaction  to  know  from  his  Lordship, 
that  the  address  and  the  Style  of  it  had  nothing  to  give  Offense.  —  If 
I  shou'd  not  succeed  in  the  thing  I  have  most  at  Heart,  yet  I  promise 
myself  that  some  attention  will  be  given  to  this  Address,  and  that  after 
Due  Consideration  of  the  State  of  the  Church  abroad,  his  Majesty  will 
give  such  directions  as  may  make  his  gracious  intentions  of  protecting 
and  Supporting  the  Church  of  England,  effectual  in  his  foreign  Dominions. 

As  to  what  relates  to  myself,  I  put  it  all  out  of  the  Case,  and  will 
resign  myself  to  his  Majesty's  pleasure.  But  there  are  many  reasons 
why  I  shou'd  desire  a  resolution  by  Authority,  and  I  hope  your  Grace, 
recollecting  what  has  passed  will  not  think  me  too  hasty  in  presenting 
this  address  next  Week,  that  I  may  know  his  Majesty's  pleasure  before 
he  goes  abroad. 

I  am 
My  Lord,  Your  Grace's 
Most  obedient  &  most  humble  Servant 
Tho  :  London. 


NEWCASTLE  TO  SHERLOCK,  1750.  323 

5- 
Duke  of  Newcastle  to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

March  25,  1750. 
My  Lord, 

I  had  the  Honour  of  your  Lordship's  Letter  of  the  23**  Ins' 
enclosing  a  Representation  of  the  State  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
America,  which  your  Lordship  proposes  to  lay  before  the  King,  in 
Council.  I  have  read  the  Representation  over,  with  great  Attention ; 
and  entirely  agree  with  my  Lord  Chancellor,  that  It  is  wrote  with  great 
Clearness  &  Decency ;  and  is  far  from  containing  anything,  that  can 
give  offense.  As  to  the  Point  of  Establishing  Bishops  in  the  West 
Indies,  your  Lordship  knows  I  have  always  thought  It  of  such  Impor- 
tance, that  It  required  the  most  mature  Consideration  ;  and  the  Opinion 
is  not  lessen'd  by  what  appears  to  have  passed,  both  here,  &  in  the  West 
Indies,  relative  to  this  Point.  If  the  Commission,  to  Bishop  Gibson, 
was  defective ;  that  may  easily  be  rectified,  if  It  shall  be  thought  proper 
to  pursue  the  same  Method  :  But,  at  present,  I  understand  from  My 
Lord  Chancellor,  your  Lordship  proposes  to  meet  some  of  the  King's 
Servants,  to  consider  this  important  Question.  I  shall,  with  greatest 
Pleasure,  attend  any  Evening,  that  is  not  already  appointed  for  other 
Business.  The  only  vacant  Evening,  this  week,  with  me,  is  Thursday ; 
I  doubt  whether  my  Brother  can  come  that  Night :  If  He  can,  I  will  fix 
that  Evening  with  Him.  In  the  Meantime  I  should  hope,  your  Lordship 
would  not  present  the  Address  to  the  King  in  Council,  till  after  his 
Majesty's  principal  Servants  have  had  a  Meeting  with  you,  upon  it.  I 
beg  your  Lordship  to  be  assured,  that  I  shall  consider  this  Question,  with 
the  utmost  Attention  ;  as  an  Affair  of  this  high  Moment,  and  so  strongly 
recommended  by  your  Lordship,  deserves.  You  cannot  wonder,  that 
one,  so  little  inform'd  of  these  things,  as  myself,  should  have  his  Doubts, 
upon  a  Question,  which  has  been  often  agitated ;  and  which  the  wisest 
&  best,  men  have  hitherto,  not  thought  proper  to  determine,  in  the  way, 
you  propose. 

I  am  always,  with  greatest  Respect, 

My  Lord,  your  Lordship's,  &c 

HoLLES  Newcastle. 


324  APPENDIX  A.  \ 

6. 

Horatio  Walpole  to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

May  29,  1750 
My  Lord, 

Your  Lordship  having  been  pleased  to  communicate  to  me  sometime 
since  in  confidence  a  paper  containing  a  State  of  y*"  Church  of  England 
in  his  Majesty's  Dominions  in  America  with  your  Lordship's  inferences  & 
reasonings  upon  it  as  motive  for  having  Suffragan  Bishops  settled  in  some 
of  these  Colonies  to  perform  certain  Ecclesiastical  functions  necessary  to 
promote  &  support  y'^  Establishment  of  that  Church  these  I  carefully 
perused  and  considered  the  whole  with  that  intention  &  disposition  as 
became  a  Member  of  y"  Church  of  England  whose  Education  &  pro- 
fession have  always  been  agreeable  to  her  form  and  Doctrine. 

But  your  Lordship  may  remember  that  when  I  returned  you  that 
paper,  I  took  y^  liberty  to  tell  you  that  however  desirable,  and  reason- 
able a  Scheme  for  settling  Bishops  for  some  purposes  in  y*"  American 
Colonys  might  be  abstractly  considered,  yet  having  weighed  this  meas- 
ure, with  a  due  regard  at  y*  same  time  to  what  appears  to  be  y*^  inclina- 
tion of  those  colonies,  and  what  might  be  y^  consequence  of  it  as  a 
matter  of  State  to  our  present  happy  EstabUshment,  I  was  apprehensive 
that  y"  carrying  it  only  so  far  as  to  be  laid  before  y*  King  &  Council 
might  be  attended  with  very  Mischievous  effects  to  y^  Government. 

For  with  respect  to  y''  Inclinations  of  y^  people  in  America  it  does  not 
appear  by  your  Lordships  Deduction  of  what  had  passed  there  in  Favor 
of  y*^  Church  of  England,  that  y^  Govemours  and  those  of  that  persua- 
sion themselves  were  at  all  desirous  of  having  Bishops  sent  thither  for 
any  purposes  whatsoever;  many  indeed  of  y"  Colonys  and  Islands  not 
only  prefer,  but  have  encouraged  &  countenanced  by  various  Acts 
y*"  forms  and  Doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  &  they  will  admit 
none  to  be  capable  of  a  benefice  untill  they  have  testimonials  of  their 
being  qualified  according  to  the  Canons  of  that  Church  by  having  taken 
Deacons  &  Priests  Orders  ;  and  your  Lordship  wou'd  draw  from  thence 
the  following  inferences 

1°  That  they  wou'd  not  be  unwilling  a  Bishop  shou'd  reside  amongst 
them 

2°  That  it  can  never  be  thought  reasonable  that  those  who  profess 
y*"  established  Religion,  &  are  Episcopal  Churches  shou'd  be  denyed 
y'^  benefit  of  Episcopal  Administration  which  according  to  their  Re- 
ligious Principles  they  think  necessary  for  them 


WALPOLE  TO  SHERLOCK,  1750.  325 

3°  That  y"  Episcopal  Churches  in  America  want  their  first  &  most 
necessary  Member  a  Bishop  to  reside  with  them  &  have  waited  with  for 
y*^  consent  y"  Crown. 

Now  with  humble  Submission  to  your  Lordships  better  Judgement  I 
do  not  think  these  inferences  your  Lordship  makes  from  y''  Attachment 
of  many  of  y''  Colonies  to  ye  Church  of  England  are  Conclusive  to  prove 
that  they  are  desirous  of  having  y''  Residence  of  a  Bishop,  for  they  confine 
all  their  Orders,  &  Acts  to  y'=  Authority  of  y**  Bishop  of  London  acting 
by  his  Commissary  there. 

They  have  never  that  I  have  learnt  made  any  formal  application,  or 
even  Intimated  to  y*  Crown  for  y*^  residence  of  Bishops  w""  them,  they 
have  vested  the  care  of  these  matters  that  want  y*  Inspection  &  Author- 
ity of  a  Bishop  upon  y^  Spot  in  other  hands  they  have  required  that 
their  Minister  shou'd  be  ordained  here  according  to  the  Cannons  of 
y*  Church  to  be  certified  by  the  Bishop  of  London,  &  all  transactions 
relating  to  y^  Clergy  they  refer  to  his  Lordship  or  his  Comissary  to 
whom  they  readily  Submitt  but  they  have  never  yet  given  y*"  least  hint 
to  him  or  any  of  y"  Officers  of  State  here,  as  if  they  wanted  y"  Mission, 
or  y''  Residence  of  a  Bishop  amongst  them ;  they  have  declared  by 
Several  Acts  of  Assembly  against  Ecclesiastical  Laws,  &  Jurisdiction  to 
enforce  or  establish  any  mulct  or  Punishment,  they  seemed  therefore  to 
have  conceived  some  jealousy  of  that  Church  power,  and  I  am  afraid  a 
stronger  Infei^ence  may  be  made  from  thence  of  their  having  no  Inclina- 
tion to  have  a  Bishop,  than  can  be  made  from  other  Acts  in  favor  of 
y''  Church  of  England  that  they  desire  to  have  one 

It  is  true  that  they  have  never  complained,  as  your  Lordship 
observes,  of  y*  Bishop's  Comissary,  nor  have  they  ever  intimated  their 
concern  at  his  not  having  sufficient  power,  &  authority  to  govern  the 
Clergy  there,  which  rather  shows  that  they  are  content  with  a  Comissary, 
than  that  they  wish  to  have  a  Bishop  in  his  place ;  and  indeed  my  Lord 
from  your  own  State  of  y"  case  all  y''  Acts  of  the  Colonys  and  encourage- 
ment in  support  of  the  Church  of  England  with  respect  to  Ecclesiastical 
Discipline,  Doctrine,  &  Authority  extend  no  farther  than  what  might  be 
legally  delegated  by  a  Bishop  of  London  to  a  Comissary  residing 

I  took  y*"  Liberty  to  observe  to  your  Lordship,  from  Your  own  paper, 
that  y*^  Bishops  Compton,  Robinson,  &  Gibson  to  whose  departm*  as 
Bishop  of  London  y^  care  of  y*'  Church  in  America  belonged,  all  Prelates 
zealously  and  rigorously  attached  to  y^  Church  of  England  carryed  their 
desire  of  having  the  Doctrine  and  Governm',  Settled  in  y*  West  Indys 
under  their  Authority  as  far  as  they  possibly  could,  &  nothing  more 


326  APPENDIX  A. 

cou'd  be  obtained  but  a  Superintendency  over  the  Church  &  his  Clergy 
there  by  Comissarys  to  be  appointed  by  them. 

And  had  it  been  thought  prudent  to  have  gone  any  farther  by  send- 
ing Suffragan  Bishops  to  y^  West  Indys  Queen  Ann,  &  her  Ministry, 
especially  at  y^  latter  end  of  her  reign  as  they  were  not  wanting  in  zeal 
for  y^  Church  to  undertake,  cou'd  not  have  wanted  power  to  carry 
through  so  plus  a  design 

I  told  your  Lordship  that  I  cou'd  very  well  remember  what  was  in 
agitation,  on  this  subject  by  Bishop  Gibson  in  1725  ;  Lord  Townshend 
was  so  good  a  friend  to  that  Orthodox  Prelate,  as  well  as  to  y*  Church, 
that  it  is  natural  to  beheve  that  such  a  Scheme  for  his  Benefit  wou'd 
have  been  pursued,  &  put  in  execution  had  not  y''  wisdom  of  those  two 
great  men  thought  unadvisable,  &  however  desirable  yet  a  Dangerous 
Step  with  Respect  to  y®  Peace,  &  Quiet  of  y*"  State ;  And  therefore  my 
Lord  independent  of  what  may  be  y''  disposition  of  y"  Governours  &  of 
great  Numbers  in  y^  West  Indys  attached  to  y''  Rites,  &  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England  ;  I  cou'd  not  forbear  letting  your  Lordship  know  that 
I  apprehended  as  soon  as  a  Scheme  of  sending  Bishops  to  y®  Colonys 
altho'  with  certain  restrictions  shou'd  under  your  Lordships  Authority  & 
Influence  be  made  publick  it  wou'd  immediately  become  y^  Topick  of 
all  conversation  ;  a  matter  of  controversy  in  y^  Pulpitts,  as  well  as  by 
Pamphletts,  &  Libells,  with  a  Spirit  of  bitterness  &  acrimony  that  pre- 
vail more  frequently  in  disputes  about  Religion  as  y'*  Authors  and 
Readers  are  differently  affected  than  on  any  other  Subject. 

The  Dissenters  of  all  Sorts  whom  I  mention  with  no  other  regard  or 
concern  than  as  they  are  generally  well  affected,  &  indeed  necessary 
Supports  to  ye  present  establishment  in  State,  &  therefore  shou'd  not 
be  provoked,  or  alienated  against  it,  will  by  the  instigation  &  complaints 
of  their  brethren  in  y^  Colonys  altho'  with  no  Solid  reasons  be  loud  in 
their  discourses  &  writings  upon  this  intended  innovation  in  America, 
and  those  in  y*^  Colonys  will  be  exasperated  &  animated  to  make 
warm  representations  against  it  to  y^  Government  here,  as  a  design  to 
establish  Ecclesiastical  power  in  its  full  extent  among  them  by  Degrees ; 
altho'  y®  first  step  seems  to  be  moderate  &  measured,  by  confining  y^ 
Authority  of  y''  Bishops  to  be  planted  amongst  them  to  certain  Colonies 
&  Functions. 

The  High  Church  party  here  /  for  immediately  y*  distinction  of  High 
Church  &  Low  Church  w*^*"  has  occasioned  great  Mischiefs  in  this 
divided  Country  in  former  Reigns,  and  has  happily  laid  a  Sleep  for  some 
Years,  will  be  revived  /  I  say  y^  High  Church  party  &  especially  a  cer- 


WALPOLE  TO  SHERLOCK. 


327 


tain  great  Nursery  of  Learning,  and  others  that  are  dissaffected  to 
y*  present  EstabUshm'  of  which  your  Lordship  must  allow  there  are  too 
many  among  those  of  y*'  Church  persuasion,  may  perhaps  cover  your 
Lordship  with  great  encomiums,  for  your  extended  &  unexampled  Zeal 
in  behalf  of  y*"  Church  of  England,  but  will  treat  with  y*^  Severest  reflex- 
ions those  and  especially  y'^  k g  &  his  ministers  who  shall  not  readily 

give  into  y*^  promoting  of  so  pious  a  design. 

The  Low  Church  party  that  are  all  well  affected  to  y*"  Present  Gov- 
ernm?  will  not  be  sparing  of  their  Censure  &  Reflexions  upon  your 
Lordship  &  others,  that  are  for  propagating  &  promoting  a  Scheme 
which  they  will  say  is  Calculated  to  sett  up  Hierarchy  &  Church  power 
in  y*^  Colonys,  &  to  create  dissention  &  confusion  among  a  People  that 
are  now  happy  &  quiet  in  their  Civil  &  Religious  State. 

And  your  Lordship  will  pardon  my  friendly  freedom  for  adding  that 
many  persons  of  Consideration  who  have  a  true  Value  for  your  Lord- 
ship's great  Learning  &  Understanding,  are  not  without  jealousy  of  your 
extraordinary  Zeal  &  desire  to  increase  Ecclesiastical  Power  in  this 
Country,  and  that  jealousy  my  Lord  will  carry  with  it  an  apprehension 
that  this  first  motion  for  settling  Bishops  in  America  to  perform  certain 
functions  only  as  Ordination  &  Confirmation  is  laying  a  foundation  for 
giving  them  gradually  y*  same  Authority  &  power  as  y*^  Bishops  here 
enjoy  &  exercise  in  all  other  respects ;  w'l'^  there  is  no  doubt  but  your 
Lordship  thinks  are  all  strictly  just  &  reasonable,  and  ought  not  to  be 
altered  or  diminish'd,  and  consequently  you  must  think  that  they  ought 
to  take  place  in  y''  Colonys,  and  if  it  was  reasonable  &  practicable  to 
attempt  y"  Estabhshment  of  them  there  at  present,  and  this  apprehension 
will  in  a  great  degree  have  y"  same  effect  &  be  attended  with  y*"  same 
consequences  of  ill  humour  &  discontent  as  if  Ecclesiastical  Govern- 
ment was  now  to  be  settled  there  in  its  full  extent. 

But  if  this  scheme  cannot  be  carry'd  into  Execution  without  being 
laid  before  y"  Parliament ;  has  your  Lordship  considered  y*"  great  dilemma 

&  difficultys  y"  K g  &  y"  administration  will  be  put  under  in  that 

respect,  »S:  shou'd  it  be  brought  thither ;  however  the  Court  may  be 
disposed,  I  am  afraid  it  will  not  be  canvassed  without  y''  greatest  heats 
&  animositys,  «&  perhaps  a  Division  among  those  that  are  best  affected 
to  his  Majesty's  Governm'  in  both  Houses,  these  Animosities  &  Divisions 
will  flow  from  y"  Parliament  into  y"  Country,  &  all  contests  in  y"  Choice 
of  Magistrates,  or  for  Members  of  Parliament  will  be  again  Governed 
by  that  Odious  &  pernicious  distinction  of  High  Church  &  Low  Church, 
and  this  puts  me  in  Mind  of  Bishop  Atterbury's  Policy  who  when  a 


328  APPENDIX  A. 

certain  Sermon  of  Docf  Hoadleys  was  printed  in  1718  said  to  his 
intimate  friends  that  condemned  it,  it  was  no  mattet-  what  y  Doctrine 
was ;  y  publication  of  it  was  a  very  lucky  event  in  favour  of  y  Right 
Line  as  it  woii'd  create  Divisions  amongst  those  attached  to  _y*  present 
establishment  for  he  added,  y"  best  means  to  be  employed  to  get  rid  of 

y'  present  R family  would  be  to  put  y^    Controversy  upon  some 

Religious  points ;  and  altho'  we  seem  to  be  in  a  State  of  perfect  tran- 
quiUty  lam  sorry  to  say  it,  but  I  am  afraid  it  is  too  true  that  y"  affection 
to  this  family  is  not  so  Universal  and  prevalent,  as  to  make  it  prudent, 
to  set  on  foot  the  most  plausible  Scheme  for  an  Innovation  in  religious 
matters  even  in  y"  Colonys  as  might  /  w'''^  I  am  firmly  persuaded  this 
would  /  hazard  a  division  among  the  best  friends  there  as  well  as  in  this 

kingdom.     I  cou'd  say  a  great  deal  to  show  that  Jaco sm  is  rather 

encreased  than  diminished  since  y"  Suppression  of  y"  last  unnatural 
RebeUion  in  1745,  w".*^  is  a  thing  rather  to  be  secretly  lamented  than 
publicly  declared,  but  this  Observation  shou'd  make  all  wise  men  such  as 
your  Lordship,  that  are  well  affected  to  this  Government,  very  Cautious 
in  Starting  &  pursuing  y*"  most  desirable  project  that  may  create  new 
disputes,  &  tend  to  disturb  y''  present  calm  &  peaceful  Situation  of 
affairs. 

Indeed  my  Lord  I  was  so  vain  as  to  Imagine  my  Conversation  with 
your  Lordship  on  this  Subject  had,  had  some  effect  upon  you,  &  you 
seemed  then  incHned  to  Suspend,  your  intention  of  laying  your  Scheme 
before  the  King,  &  afterwards  when  you  mentioned  it  to  His  Majesty, 
&  he  was  pleased  to  refer  y*'  Matter  to  y"  Consideration  of  His  Privy 
Council,  you  lodged  your  paper  with  y"  Lord  President  declaring  to 
Several  that  you  had  done  your  duty  &  having  discharged  your  Con- 
science, you  shou'd  let  it  rest  there  to  be  Considered  by  the  Council 
when  they  shou'd  think  proper. 

And  as  the  matter  stood  thus  when  His  Majesty  went  abroad  I 
must  own  my  Lord  that  I  was  Surprised  &  Concerned  to  hear  that  at  a 
late  meeting  of  y^  Society  for  propagating  y^  Gospel,  your  Lordship 
having  stated  to  them  what  had  passed,  &  proposed  that,  while  this 
matter  was  pending  in  Council,  y"  Society  shou'd  write  a  letter  to  y* 
several  Governours  in  the  West  Indys,  and  by  Stating  to  them  y''  several 
objections  Supposed  to  have  been  made  against  y''  intended  Scheme 
of  Settling  Bishops  there,  and  y^  answers  that  might  be  made  to  remove 
those  objections,  to  conclude  with  desiring  to  know  their  Opinions  & 
y^  disposition  of  y"  Colonys,  with  respect  to  y"  putting  it  in  Execution. 

Now  my  Lord,  as  this  is  a  Matter  of  State,  and  has  been  referred  by 


WALPOLE   TO   SHERLOCK.  329 

his  Majesty  to  be  considered  in  Council,  &  your  Lordship  is  one  of  that 
Body  It  seems  to  be  not  entirely  consistent  with  y"  prudence  of  one  in 
that  Station  unless  so  desired  by  the  Council,  to  resume  an  affair  of  this 
Importance  in  y-  Society  for  propagating  y''  Gospel,  and  under  a  Notion 
of  Supposed  objections  to  it,  and  Supposed  answers  framed  by  your 
Lordship,  or  if  you  please  by  that  Society,  to  write  a  plausible  letter  to 
the  Governours  for  their  Sentiments  upon  a  matter  of  State,  under  y^ 
Consideration  of  y''  Council,  there  may  possibly  be  other  objections 
such  as  I  have  mentioned  before  relating  to  y''  Government  besides 
what  may  be  Stated  in  your  Lordship's  letter,  and  even  with  respect  to 
y"  answers  to  those  objections  that  you  suppose  to  have  been  Suggested, 
can  your  Lordship  and  that  Society  undertake  to  make  those  answers 
good  ?  Can  you  undertake  to  promise  that  no  coercive,  or  other 
Ecclesiastical  power  besides  Ordination  &  Confirmation,  shall  ever  be 
proposed  &  pressed  upon  y"  Colonys  when  Bishops  have  been  once 
settled  amongst  them,  or  beyond  what  is  at  present  exercised  by  the 
Bishop  of  London's  Commissary? 

Can  y-  Society  undertake  that  y"  maintenance  of  y*'  Bishops  in  y* 
West  Indys  shall  be  no  Burthen  to  y''  Colonys  ?  are  they  to  determine 
what  that  expence  is  to  be?  &  how  is  it  to  be  supply'd?  or  is  it  intended 
that  it  shall  be  done  by  a  Voluntary  Contribution  out  of  y"  Bishopricks 
in  England? 

But  for  what  end  or  purpose  is  the  Opinion  of  y*"  Governours,  or  y* 
people  in  America  to  be  asked  at  this  juncture  ?  While  the  Considera- 
tion of  this  matter  is  before  y"  Council,  who  may  and  I  suppose  will 
advise  his  Majesty  to  do  what  is  best  for  y"  good  of  his  Subjects  &  his 
Government  when  the  whole  case  &  the  consequences  of  it  shall  have 
been  examined  &  taken  into  Deliberation  by  them ;  but  Suppose  my 
Lord  y^  Governors  in  America  being  consulted,  &  influenced  perhaps 
in  a  great  measure  by  the  weight  of  your  Lordship's  Character,  your 
Station  as  Bishop  of  London,  &  your  Credit  with  the  King  &  the  Minis- 
try, shou'd  in  their  Answer  be  of  Opinion  that  y''  Scheme  for  Episcopacy 
in  y'^  West  Indys  under  y"  Limitation  &  explanations  proposed  by  your 
Lordship,  wou'd  not  be  inconvenient,  but  even  beneficial ;  &  shou'd  on 
y*"  other  side  the  Majority  of  y"  Council  be  of  Opinion  for  reasons  of 
State  that  y"  Execution  of  it  may,  notwithstanding  the  favorable  Senti- 
ments of  y''  Governours  in  behalf  of  it,  be  prejudicial  to  his  Majesty's 
Governmf,  has  your  Lordship  well  weighed  y"  Consequences  that  may 
result  from  an  affair  so  Circumstanced  &  perplexed,  &  the  Embaras- 
[ment]  that  his  Majesty  &  his  Council  may  be  under  in  coming  to  a 


330  APPENDIX  A. 

Decision  upon  it,  which  whatever  it  may  be,  in  all  likelihood  will  occassion 
great  heats  &  Controversys  as  partys  are  in  this  Notion  unhappily  di- 
vided &  differently  affected. 

Shou'd  not  your  Lordships  wisdom  &  moderation  as  a  Prelate,  so 
much  recomended  in  y'  Gospel  to  y"  followers  of  our  Saviour ;  and 
Quality  of  a  Privy  Councellor  prevail  with  you  to  forbear  taking  this 
Step  untill  you  shou'd  See  what  is  like  to  be  done  upon  it  by  y** 
Council. 

If  they  shou'd  be  dilatory  in  taking  it  under  their  Consideration,  it 
wou'd  be  an  Indication  to  your  Lordship  of  their  not  caring  to  come 
hastily  to  a  Determination  in  a  matter  of  so  much  Consequence  &  diffi- 
culty, &  should  be  an  Inducement  to  let  your  Spiritual  Zeal  yield  to  your 
Temporal  Prudence,  &  make  you  rest  contented  after  having  discharged 
your  Conscience  as  Bishop  of  London  in  having  laid  the  matter  before 
his  Majesty. 

Should  y**  Council  upon  his  Majesty's  return  home  take  it  under 
their  Consideration  and  be  desirous,  as  a  Material  point  in  their  de- 
liberation, to  know  y"  Sentiments  of  the  Governours,  &  of  y"  Colonys 
upon  it,  there  is  no  doubt  but  what  they  will  give  directions  fot-  that 
purpose,  &  therefore  my  Lord,  as  you  was  pleased  to  impart  this  matter 
for  settling  Episcopacy  in  America  early  to  me,  you  will  excuse  y"  Liberty 
I  take  in  exhorting  you  for  y''  sake  of  publick  peace,  &  y°  Interest  of 
this  happy  EstabUshment  not  to  proceed  any  farther  in  it ;  for  I  can't 
help  repeating  ray  fears  that,  if  2000  copys  of  your  projected  letter  to 
y''  Governours,  with  a  State  of  y''  Supposed  objections  &  answers  relating 
to  your  Scheme,  shou'd  be  forthwith  printed,  as  I  am  told  your  Lordship 
has  proposed,  it  wou'd  Stir  up  great  feuds  &  animositys,  in  Canvassing 
by  Virulent  Pamphlets,  y*'  Question  on  both  sides,  &  I  can't  but  hope 
that  your  Lordship  when  you  have  cooly  weigh'd  y"  Consequence  of 
such  Commotions  will  give  a  pause  to  your  present  good  Intentions ;  & 
wait  with  patience  the  return  of  his  Majesty,  to  learn  y"  Sentiments 
&  proceedings  of  his  Council  upon  what  you  have  lodged  with  them 
without  making  it  immediately  y"  Subject  of  discourse  or  debate  either 
in  this  Country  or  in  America.  The  thing  itself  is  new,  &  therefore 
deserves  Serious  Consideration ;  it  is  not  of  so  pressing  and  urgent  a 
Nature,  as  to  hazard  any  great  inconvenience  from  being  Suspended ; 
precipitation  may,  but  Delay  cannot  be  dangerous  in  this  Case,  I  am  &c. 

Cockpit, 

May  29,  1750. 


WALPOLE  TO  NEWCASTLE,  1750.  33 1 

7- 
Horatio  Walpole  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle. 

Cockpit,  June  7,  1750. 
My  Lord/ 

My  unalterable  attachment  to  his  Maj'^'  person  and  Government 
[prompted  me]  to  write  y*"  letter  (of  w"''  your  Grace  has  a  copy  en- 
closed) to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

The  Subject,  and  occasion  of  it  are  so  fully  sett  forth  in  y*"  Contents 
as  to  want  no  farther  explanations. 

I  dare  say  your  Grace  is  persuaded  that  both  his  L''''^  &  I  have 
y*^  same  good  intentions  for  his  Majestys  interest  &  Service,  And  I  must 
own  that  his  Superior  talents  make  me  diffident  of  my  own  Sentiments, 
when  they  do  not  fall  in  with  his ;  And  if  I  am  mistaken  in  my  judge- 
ment, on  a  matter  of  so  much  consequence  to  y"  State,  I  hope  it  will  be 
attributed  to  my  abundant  zele,  &  concern  for  y''  Peace,  &  happiness  of 
his  Maj'^^  Reign. 

Your  Grace  will  be  so  good  as  to  manage  this  Confidence,  of  an 
accidental,  &  private  Correspondence  between  y"  Bishop  &  me  with 
your  usual  discretion,  because  if  my  apprehensions  are  at  all  well-founded, 
the  proposal  of  so  great  a  man  to  settle  Episcopacy  in  the  Colonys  should 
be  as  little  known  as  possible  to  y*"  Publick ;  I  am  with  great  respect 

My  Lord 
yr  Lrdps  j^Qg^.  obedi't  & 

most  humble  Servent 
H.  Walpole. 
8. 

Duke  of  Newcastle  to   Horatio  Walpole. 

June  24,  1750. 
Sir,  July  5 

I  am  extremely  oblig'd  to  you,  for  the  Honor  of  your  Letter,  and 
your  Goodness,  in  Sending  me  a  Copy  of  one,  that  you  had  wrote  to  the 
Bishop  of  London,  upon  His  Lordship's  Scheme,  for  Settling  Bishops  in 
the  West  Indies.  I  have  read  it  over,  with  great  Attention  ;  and  think, 
you  have  stated  the  Case,  with  great  Clearness,  and  Judgement,  that  the 
Considerations,  there  suggested,  are  of  the  utmost  Importance  ;  and 
ought  to  be  thoroughly  weighed,  before  this  Scheme  is  carried  into 
Execution.  I  always  had  very  good  Doubts,  upon  This  Measure,  from 
the  First  Proposal,  and  I  have  told  His  Lord",  from  the  Beginning ;  And 
I  was  so  happy,  as  to  make  Some  of  the  same  Inferences,  from  the 


332  APPENDIX  A. 

Proofs,  He  alledg'd,  of  the  Sense,  &  Inclination,  of  the  Colonies,  & 
Islands,  That  you  have  done  ;  which  I  sent  His  Lord?,  in  a  Letter  I  wrote 
to  Him,  immediately  after  I  had  His  Paper.  I  own,  I  think,  There  is 
great  Weight,  also,  in  the  Consequences,  You  so  judiciously  suggest,  that 
This  Affair  may  have  at  Home,  in  reviving  old  Disputes,  &  Distinctions, 
which  are,  at  present,  quiet ;  and,  perhaps,  creating  new  Divisions 
amongst  Those,  Who  Sincerely  mean  the  Good  of  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment and  the  Good  of  Their  Country.  For  These  Reasons,  I  am 
persuaded,  The  Lords  of  the  Council,  will  fully  consider  all  These 
Points,  before  any  material  Step  is  taken  in  this  Affair.  I  was  extremely 
sorry  to  hear,  That  the  Society,  for  propagating  the  Gospel,  had  been 
concerned  in  it :  But  I  find  Since,  That  That  is  Stopped.  Your  zeal  for 
his  Majesty's  Service,  and  Government  is  too  well  known,  and  acknowl- 
edg'd,  for  it  to  be  proper  for  me  to  say  any  Thing  upon  it.  You  will 
allow  me,  however  to  observe,  That  you  have  shew'd,  very  usefully,  upon 
this  occasion.  .  .  . 

9- 
Horatio  Walpole  to  the   Duke  of  Newcastle. 

July  14,  1750. 
Your  Grace's  favorable  reception  (so  fully  exprest  in  y"  honour  of 
y"  letter  of  y''  5'"  of  July  :  )  of  my  Sentiments  upon  y*"  Bishop  of  Londons 
Scheme  for  settling  Episcopacy  in  y**  West  Indys,  requires  my  best 
acknowledgements,  and  gave  me  no  small  satisfaction,  I  can  assure  your 
Grace,  as  corroborating  with  yours  my  opinion  in  a  matter  of  so  much 
importance  to  y"  Peace  &  Quiet  of  his  Majestys  Government;  w"*"  all 
good  Subjects  should  promote,  and  render  as  easy  to  him,  as  it  has  been 
constantly  mild,  &  prosperous  to  them,  as  well  as  greatly  admired  & 
respected  by  foreign  Powers.  .  .  . 

XII.     BISHOP    SHERLOCK'S   REPORT   ON  THE   STATE  OF   THE 
CHURCH    OF   ENGLAND   IN   THE   COLONIES. 

New    York    Colonial  Docmnents,  VII,  pp.   360-369,  from   Plantations   General 
Entries  (B.  T.),  XVI,  p.  9. 

To  the  King  in  Council 

Some  considerations  humbly  offered  by  Thomas  Bishop  of  London 

relating  to  Ecclesiastical  Government  in  His  Majestys  Dominions 

in  America. 

The  first  Grant  the  Crown  made  of  lands  in  America  was  dated  the 

10**'  April  in  the  4'"  year  of  James  the  i"  anno  1606  and  made  to  the 

two  Virginia  Companies. 


SHERLOCK'S  REPORT. 


333 


The  King  grants  that  each  of  them  should  have  a  Council,  w"''  sho^ 
govern  and  order  all  matters  &  causes  within  the  same  several  Colonies, 
according  to  such  Laws  Ordinances  and  Instructions  as  sho^  in  that 
behalf  be  given  and  signed  by  His  Majesty's  hand  or  sign  manual  &!^  pass 
under  the  Privy  Seal  of  England. 

1606.  On  the  20"*  Nov"  1606  the  King  in  pursuance  of  the  right 
reserved  to  himself,  gave  divers  orders  under  his  Sign  manuall  and  the 
Privy  Seal,  one  of  which  was  as  follows  :  "That  the  President  Council 
and  Ministers  should  provide  that  the  true  word  and  service  of  God 
should  be  preached  planted  and  used,  according  to  the  Rites  afid  Doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  England." 

1609.  The  second  grant  was  made  separately  to  the  first  Virginia 
Company  dated  May  23*^  in  the  7'''  of  the  said  King  1609  w*^*"  orders  that 
there  sho**  be  a  Council  resident  here  and  gives  them  power  to  establish 
all  manner  of  laws  concerning  the  governm'  of  the  said  Colony,  with 
power  to  punish,  pardon,  &''  according  to  such  ordinances  constitutions 
&"  as  by  such  Council  should  be  established ;  so  always  as  the  said 
Ordinances  &'^  as  near  as  conveniently  might  be  agreeable  to  the  Laws, 
Statutes,  Government  and  Policy  of  the  Realm. 

1620.  The  third  Grant  was  made  to  the  2*^  Virginia  Company  (then 
called  the  Council  at  Plymouth)  and  bears  date  Nov'  3"^  18"*  James  I. 
Anno  1620,  and  is  to  the  same  effect  with  the  former,  with  this  addition 
that  all  persons  who  sho*^  pass  in  any  voiage  to  the  said  country  sho"* 
take  the  Oath  of  Supremacy,  which  was  meant  to  exclude  Papists  from 
settling  in  America. 

The  affairs  of  the  Company  went  on  but  slowly,  &  after  twelve  years 
and  a  great  sum  of  money  spent,  the  Colony  consisted  but  of  600  per- 
sons, men  women  and  children.  Under  these  circumstances  nothing 
was  done  and  nothing  could  be  expected  to  be  done  towards  settling 
the  Church  there. 

In  1620.  there  were  but  five  Clergymen  in  the  Plantations.  The 
Comp^  had  ordered  an  100  acres  in  each  of  their  burroughs  (w"'''  were 
in  number  eleven)  to  be  set  apart  for  a  glebe,  and  for  a  further  mainte- 
nance laid  upon  every  planter  a  certain  portion  of  tobacco  to  be  paid  to 
the  Minister, 

The  next  care  was  to  get  more  Clergymen  to  go  abroad  to  the  Planta- 
tions, and  this  was  to  be  provided  for  by  the  Virginia  Council  that  sat  at 
London.  The  Bishop  of  London  was  a  great  promoter  of  the  Planta- 
tions and  had  collected  and  paid  in  ^1000  towards  the  College  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  was  himself  one  of  the  Council  for  Virginia.     The  Company 


334  APPENDIX  A. 

therefore,  as  it  was  natural  for  them  to  do,  applied  to  the  Bishop  of 
London,  a  member  of  their  own  Society,  for  his  help  and  assistance  in 
procuring  Ministers.  And  this  is  the  first  instance  I  meet  with  of  the 
Bp.  of  London's  concern  in  the  Ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  Plantations. 

1624  But  so  little  was  done  towards  settling  the  Church  that  it 
appears  by  the  report  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  in  the  year 
1624.  that  divers  of  those  who  acted  as  Ministers  had  no  Orders.  In 
this  Assembly  there  passed  laws  consisting  of  35  articles.  The  first 
seven  related  to  the  Church  and  Ministry,  but  not  the  least  intimation 
that  the  Bp.  of  London  had  any  authority  or  jurisdiction  there. 

By  Proclamation  15"*  July  1624.  the  Virginia  Company  &"  was  sup- 
pressed ;  and  from  that  time  the  King  has  appointed  Governors. 

1626.  S""  George  Yardly  was  appointed  Governor  of  Virginia;  his 
instructions  bear  date  19"^  April  1626.  The  2*^  Article  relates  to  religion 
and  is  as  follows  :  — 

"  That  in  the  first  place  you  be  careful,  "  That  Almighty  God  may  be 
duly  and  daily  served,  both  by  your  self  and  the  people  under  your 
charge,  which  may  draw  down  a  blessing  on  all  your  endeavours." 

1650.  S"^  William  Berkely  was  Governor.  His  instructions  bear  date 
1650.     The  first  article  relates  to  Religion  :  — 

"  That  in  the  first  place  you  be  careful  Almighty  God  be  duly  and  daily 
served,  according  to  the  form  of  Religion  established  in  the  Church  of 
England. 

"  Let  every  Congregation  have  an  able  Minister,  build  for  him  a  con- 
venient Parsonage  House  with  200  acres  of  glebe  land.  Suffer  no  inno- 
vation in  matters  of  religion,  and  be  careful  to  appoint  sufficient  and 
conformable  Ministers  to  each  congregation." 

1675.  -^^  ^  Committee  of  Trade  and  Plantations  21^'  Jan.  1675.  I 
find  the  following  entry  :  — 

"Their  Lordships  desire  that  enquiry  be  made  touching  the  Jurisdic- 
tion which  the  Bp.  of  London  hath  over  the  Foreign  Plantations ;  in 
order  to  w''^  see  the  Charter  of  Virginia  and  New  England,  or  by  any 
other  order  since,  but  most  probably  about  the  year  1629.  when  Bp. 
Laud  was  in  Chief  Authority." 

What  gave  rise  to  this  inquiry  I  cannot  find,  but  as  there  was  nothing 
relating  to  this  jurisdiction  to  be  found,  there  does  not  appear  any  return 
to  be  made  to  this  Enquiry.  And  the  part  allotted  to  the  Bp.  of  London 
in  the  next  Governor's  instructions  shows  that  the  Bp.  was  not  thought  to 
have  diXiy jurisdiction;  for  he  has  nothing  but  a  mere  Ministerial  Office 
appointed  him,  as  appears  in  Lord  Culpepers  Instructions  in  1679. 


SHERLOCK'S  REPORT.  335 

1679.  Thomas  Lord  Culpeper  was  Govern''  of  Virginia.  His  instruc- 
tions bear  date  6""  Sepf  1679.  Thie  15""  articles  decrees  that  God  be 
duly  served,  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  as  is  noiv  established,  read 
each  Sunday  and  Holy  Day,  and  the  Blessed  Sacrament  adtninistered 
according  to  the  rules  of  the  Church  of  England. 

The  1 6"'  article  "  And  our  will  and  pleasure  is  that  no  Minister  be 
preferr'd  by  you,  to  any  Ecclesiastical  Benefice  in  that  Our  Colony 
without  a  Certificate  fro/n  the  Lord  Bp.  of  London,  of  his  being  conform- 
able to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Chu?rh  of  England J^ 

Jamaica. 

1661.  Lord  Windsor  was  Governor  of  Jamaica;  his  instructions  bear 
date  March  21^'  1661.  The  11"^  article  concerns  religion:  —  "You  are 
to  give  the  best  encouragement  you  can  to  such  conformable  Ministers 
of  the  Gospel  as  now  are  or  shall  come  and  be  sent  unto  you.  That 
Christianity  &  the  Protestant  Religion  according  to  the  Doctrine  and 
Discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,  may  have  a  due  reverence  and 
exercise  among  you." 

1 68 1.    S' Thomas  Lynch  was  Governor.     His  instructions  bear  date 

1 68 1.     The   38""  Article  relates  to  religion:  —  "Our  will  and 

pleasure  is  that  no  Minister  be  preferr'd  by  you  without  a  Certificate 

from  the  Bp.  of  London,  of  his  being  conformable  to  the  Doctrine  of 

the  Church  of  England." 

And  you  are  to  enquire  whether  any  Minister  preaches  or  administers 
the  Sacrament  without  being  in  due  Orders;  whereof  you  are  to  give 
notice  to  the  Bp.  of  London. 

What  the  Bp.  of  London  could  do  upon  such  notice,  does  not  appear. 
The  Plantations  being  no  part  of  his  Diocese,  nor  had  he  any  authority 
to  act  there. 

1685.  At  the  Committee  of  Trade  15'*"  April  1685.  a  letter  from  the 
Bp.  of  London  proposing,  i*'  "That  he  may  have  all  Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction  in  the  West  Indies,  excepting  the  disposal  of  parishes, 
licences  for  Marriage  &''  Probate  of  Wills. 

2^  "  That  no  Schoolmaster  coming  from  England,  be  received  without 
Licence  from  His  Lordship,  or  from  other  His  Majesty's  Plantations 
without  they  take  the  Governor's  licence. 

3'''*  "  That  orders  may  be  given  for  estabhshing  the  Donation  of  S' 
Andrews  Parish  in  Jamaica." 

"  Whereupon  their  Lordships  agree  to  take  these  proposals  into 
further  consideration  when  my  Lord  Bp.  of  London  shall  be  present." 


336  APPENDIX  A. 

At  the  Committee  of  Trade  the  27  Apr.  1685. 

"  The  Proposals  from  the  Bp.  of  London  contain'd  in  a  letter  to  M' 
Blathwayt  are  again  read,  His  Lordship  being  present ;  which  being 
approved,  their  Lordships  agree  to  move  His  Majesty  that  the  Gov- 
ernors of  His  Majesty's  Plantations  have  instructions  according  to  the 
two  first  particulars,  and  that  a  clause  be  added  to  S''  Philip  Howard's 
instructions,  to  that  effect ;  as  also  for  applying  the  Donation  at  S' 
Andrews  Parish  in  Jamaica  to  the  proper  Uses." 

In  consequence  of  this  apphcation  from  the  Bp.  and  the  Resolution 
of  the  Board,  a  clause  was  added  in  the  same  year  in  S""  PhiUp  Howards 
instructions,  as  follows  :  — 

And  our  will  and  pleasure  is,  that  no  Minister  be  preferr'd  by  you, 
to  any  Ecclesiastical  benefice,  without  a  certificate  from  the  R  Rev^  the 
Bp.  of  London,  of  his  conforming  to  the  Doctrine  and  Discipline  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

''And  to  the  end  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  of  the  s^  Bp.  of  London 
may  take  place  in  that  our  Island,  as  far  as  conveniently  may  be,  we  do 
thinkit  fit  that  you  give  all  countenance  and  encouragem'  in  the  exercise 
of  the  same  excepting  only  the  Collating  to  Benefices,  granting  licences 
for  Marriage,  and  Probate  of  Wills,  which  we  have  reserved  to  you  our 
Governor  and  the  Commander  in  Chief  for  the  time  being. 

And  we  do  further  direct  that  no  Schoolmaster  be  hence  forward  per- 
mitted to  come  from  England  and  to  keep  school  within  that  our  Island, 
without  the  licence  of  the  said  Bishop." 

The  like  Instructions  were  given  to  other  Governors. 

Under  this  authority  Bishop  Compton,^  Bp  Robinson,^  and  Bp.  Gib- 
son ^  for  the  first  two  or  three  years  after  he  was  promoted  to  the  See 
of  London,  exercised  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the  Plantations ; 
with  exception  to  the  Collation  of  Benefices,  Marriage  Licences  & 
Probate  of  Wills  w*"^  were  reserv'd  to  the  Governors  at  the  respective 
Colonies. 

1725.  In  the  year  1725  Bp.  Gibson  desirious  of  having  a  more 
explicit  authority  and  direction  from  the  Crown,  for  the  exercise   of 

1  Henry  Compton,  was  consecrated  bishop  of  Oxford,  April  i8th,  1674,  and  trans- 
lated to  London,  in  1675. 

2  John  Robinson,  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  Bristol,  19th  of  November,  1710,  and 
succeeded  Bishop  Compton,  in  the  see  of  London,  1713. 

3  Edmund  Gibson,  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  February  12,  1715,  and 
succeeded  Bishop  Robinson,  in  the  see  of  London,  in  1723.  He  died  in  1748. 
PercivaVs  Apostolic  Succession.  —  Ed. 


SHERLOCK'S  REPORT.  337 

the  said  Jurisdiction,  applied  to  the  King  in  Council  for  that  purpose. 
The  Petition  was  referred  to  the  Attorney  and  SoHcitor  General  &  by 
their  report  their  opinion  appears  to  be  that  the  authority  by  w*"^  the 
Bps.  of  London  had  acted  in  y*"  Plantacons  was  insufficient,  and  that  the 
Ecclial  Jurisdiction  in  America  did  belong  neither  to  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don, nor  to  any  Bp.  in  England  but  was  solely  in  the  Crown  in  virtue 
of  the  Supre??iacy,  and  that  the  most  proper  way  of  granting  to  any 
person  the  exercise  of  such  jurisdiction,  was  by  Patent  under  the  Broad 
Seal.  Accordingly,  a  Patent  was  granted  to  D''  Gibson  late  Bp.  of  Lon- 
don, but  it  was  granted  to  him  Personally  &  not  to  him  as  Bp.  of  London 
and  his  successors ;  so  that  the  Patent  expired  with  him  and  the 
Jurisdiction  is  now  solely  in  His  Majesty. 

By  the  grant  to  D'  Gibson  his  exercise  of  the  Jurisdiction  was  sub- 
jected to  certain  limitations  and  restraints,  and  'tis  not  clear  what 
powers  he  had  in  virtue  of  the  s^  grant.  The  Patent  gives  him  authority 
by  himself  or  Commissaries  (i)  To  visit  all  Churches  in  which  the  Rites 
&  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  were  used.  (2)  To  Cite  all  Rectors 
Curates  and  Incumbents  and  all  Priests  and  Deacons  in  Church  of 
England  Orders,  et  non  alias  quascumque  personas,  cum  omni  et  omni- 
modo  jurisdictione  potestate  et  coercione  ecclesiastica,  in  premissis 
requisit.  and  to  enquire  by  Witnesses  duly  sworti  into  their  morals 
&°  with  power  to  Administer  Oaths  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Court,  and  to 
Correct  &  punish  the  said  Rectors  &*=  by  suspension  excommunication 
&'  (3)  A  power  to  appoint  Commissaries  for  the  exercise  of  this  Juris- 
diction and  to  remove  them  at  pleasure.  (4)  An  appeal  is  given,  to 
all  who  shall  find  themselves  aggrieved  by  any  sentence,  before  the 
Great  Officers  of  State  in  England 

Observations  on  this  Patent. 

1.  A  power  is  given  to  visit  all  churches,  but  he  has  no  power  to  cite 
the  Churchwardens  or  any  of  the  Parishioners  to  appear ;  and  should 
any  of  them  appear  voluntarily  he  has  no  right  to  give  them  any  orders 
relating  to  the  Church  or  Church  affairs ;  his  whole  power  and  jurisdic- 
tion being  confined  to  the  Clergy  only. 

2.  He  has  power  to  cite  all  Priests  and  Deacons  &  to  examine  into 
their  conduct  provided  they  have  Church  of  England  Orders ;  but  if  a 
man  should  counterfeit  Episcopal  Orders  and  administer  the  Sacraments, 
he  has  no  power  to  proceed  ag''  him 

3.  He  has  power  to  examine  into  the  Conduct  of  the  Clergy,  upon 
the  Oath  of  Witnesses,  and  power  to  administer  Oaths  for  the  purpose ; 


338  APPENDIX  A 

but  he  has  no  power  to  cite  any  man,  at  least  no  Layman  to  give  testi- 
mony before  liim  :  yet  the  Laymen  may  be  many  times  necessary  wit- 
nesses as  in  such  cases ;  and  they  see  daily  how  their  Curate  behaves, 
which  other  Clergymen,  who  serve  distant  parishes  can  give  no  ac- 
count of. 

4.  The  Bishop  has  power  to  appoint  Commissaries  to  exercise  such 
jurisdiction  as  is  granted  him  by  the  Patent,  and  as  the  Bp.  of  London 
cannot  be  supposed  to  reside  in  America,  he  can  do  nothing  by  himself, 
as  soon  as  he  has  appointed  Commissaries,  the  Bishop  can  neither  direct, 
nor  correct,  their  judgment.  No  appeal  lyes  to  the  Bp.  nor  indeed  can 
there  ;  for  in  judgment  of  Law,  the  Commissary's  Sentence  is  the  Bp's 
sentence,  and  the  Appeal  must  go  to  a  higher  Court. 

But  this  shows  at  the  same  time  how  very  improper  it  is  to  give  such 
power  to  a  Bp.  of  England,  which  he  cannot  execute,  but  must  be 
obliged  to  give  it  over  to  somebody  else,  as  soon  as  he  has  it.  So  that 
the  Bp.  receiving  with  one  hand  what  he  must  necessarily  give  away 
with  the  other,  remains  himself  a  Cypher  without  any  authority  power  or 
influence. 

If  these  observations  are  well  founded  the  Bishop's  jurisdiction,  as 
under  the  Patent,  seems  to  be  defective. 

But  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  America  suffer  greater  hardships  still, 
by  being  under  a  Bishop  who  never  can  reside  among  them.  There  are 
some  things  necessary  to  such  Churches  w"^  the  Bp.  only  can  do  himself. 
Such  for  instance  are  Confirmation  and  Ordination,  which  are  not  acts 
of  jurisdiction  or  transferable  to  Commissaries,  but  are  acts  peculiar  to 
the  Episcopal  Order  and  the  Episcopal  Churches  abroad  are  totally 
deprived  of  Confirmation.  As  to  Orders,  since  the  Bp.  only  can  give 
them,  there  is  not  in  this  vast  tract  of  land,  one  who  can  ordain  Min- 
isters for  the  Church  of  England.  In  which  respect  the  Dissenters  of 
all  kinds,  upon  the  mere  foot  of  Toleration  are  in  a  better  case  :  for 
they  all  appoint  Ministers  in  their  own  way,  and  were  the  Dissenters  in 
New  England  and  elsewhere  in  America,  to  send  all  their  Ministers  to 
be  ordained  by  their  Brethren  in  England,  they  wo^  think  it  a  great 
hardship  and  inconsistent  with  the  rights  they  claim  by  Toleration. 

From  these  considerations  it  appears  that  several  Colonies  abroad 
where  the  Church  of  England  is  estabhshed,  are,  with  respect  to  their 
religious  principles,  put  under  great  difficulties.  They  are  absolutely 
deprived  of  confirmation  for  all  their  youth  and  children,  and  they  are 
oftentimes  ill  supply'd  with  Ministers  to  perform  other  duties  of  religion 
among  them ;  for  as  the  families  settled  in  the  country  and  which  are 


SHERLOCK'S  REPORT.  339 

able  to  provide  otherwise  for  their  children,  will  not  send  their  Children 
at  a  great  expence  and  hazard  to  be  ordain'd  in  England,  where  they 
often  (as  by  experience  has  been  found)  catch  the  Small  Pox,  a  distem- 
per more  fatal  to  them  than  to  others,  and  several  who  have  come  over 
hither  for  Orders  have  dyed  here  of  this  disease.  In  consequence  of 
this  the  Plantations  are  furnished  with  such  Ministers  from  hence,  as 
can  be  prevail'd  upon  to  go  among  them,  or  such  as  are  forced  through 
necessity  to  seek  a  maintenance  in  a  foreign  country.  And  they  are 
chiefly  Scotch  &  Irish  who  offer  themselves  for  this  service ;  and  there 
is  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Clergy  who  cannot 
be  employed  at  home,  may  think  of  settling  in  the  Plantations ;  which 
may  be  attended  with  bad  consequences  in  regard  to  the  government. 

The  Churches  abroad  of  the  Episcopal  Communion  have  been  under 
a  necessity  of  submitting  to  these  difficulties ;  for  as  Protestants  they 
cannot  apply  to  Popish  Bishops  for  Confirmation  or  Orders ;  and  as 
Episcopal  Churches  they  could  resort  for  Orders  only  to  English  or 
Irish  Bishops.  But  since  the  Moravians  have  been  recognized  by  Par- 
ham*  to  be  a  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  have  liberty  to  settle  in 
His  Majesty's  American  Dominions,  should  the  Churches  abroad  admit 
of  Ordination  by  Moravian  Bps.  it  may  be  attended  by  consequences 
not  easily  foreseen,  but  easily  prevented  by  suffering  the  Episcopal 
Churches  of  England  in  America  to  have  one  or  more  Sufifregan 
Bishops  residing  among  them. 

As  the  Dissenters  at  home  and  abroad  may  possibly  think  themselves 
concern'd  in  this  question ;  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  Bps.  abroad 
are  not  desired  in  behalf  of  an  inconsiderable  party  there,  and  that  the 
Independents  and  other  Dissenters  do  by  no  means  (as  the  case  is 
sometimes  mistaken  to  be)  make  the  body  of  the  Inhabitants  in  His 
Majesty's  American  Dominions.  But  previously  to  stating  how  the  fact 
is  at  present,  it  is  proper  to  recollect  how  the  law  stands  with  respect 
to  the  establishment  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America,  according 
to  the  royal  Charters  and  Instructions  given  to  the  King's  Governors 
abroad  herein  before  mentioned. 

For  the  Church  of  England  being  establish'd  in  America,  the  Inde- 
pendents and  other  Dissenters  who  went  to  settle  in  New  England, 
co'^  only  have  a  Toleration  and  in  fact  they  had  no  more,  as  appears 
by  their  several  Charters,  and  more  particularly  in  Rhode  Island  Charter, 
granted  in  the  14'''  year  of  Cha'  IP*^. 

Thus  stands  the  right  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America.  And  in 
fact,  at  least  one  half  of  the  Plantations  are  of  the  estabUshed  Church, 


340  APPENDIX  A. 

and  have  built  Churches  and  Minister's  houses  and  have  by  laws  of 
their  respective  Assemblies  (confirm'd  by  the  Crown)  provided  mainte- 
nance for  Church  of  England  Clergy,  &  no  others  are  capable  of  having 
benefices  among  them. 

This  is  the  case  of  S"  Carolina,  N°  Carolina,  Virginia,  Maryland, 
Jamaica,  Barbadoes,  Antegoa,  Nevis,  and  the  rest  of  the  Caribbee 
Islands. 

On  the  other  side  —  Pennsylvania  is  in  the  hands  and  under  the 
governm'  of  the  Quakers,  and  New  England  and  the  adjoining  Colonies 
are  in  the  hands  of  the  Independents.  But  in  some  of  them  are  great 
numbers  of  Churchmen. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  it  wo**  be  hard  to  send  Bps  :  among  the 
Dissenters  in  America ;  many  of  whom  left  their  own  Country  to  get 
from  under  their  power. 

If  Bps.  were  proposed  to  be  established  in  Pensilvania  and  New 
England,  with  Coercive  Powers,  there  wo''  be  some  colour  in  the  com- 
plaint. But  as  it  never  has  been  propos'd  to  settle  Bps.  in  those  Colo- 
nies, nor  in  any  other  Colonies,  with  Coercive  powers,  there  is  no  ground 
for  it.  And  whatever  prejudices  the  Independents  of  New  England  may 
have  to  Bps.  themselves,  surely  it  can  never  be  thought  reasonable  that 
because  the  Northern  end  of  America  is  possessed  chiefly  by  the  Inde- 
pendents, therefore  the  Southern  and  Midland  parts  and  the  Islands,  who 
profess  the  Established  Religion  of  England  and  are  Episcopal  Churches, 
sho**  be  denyed  the  benefit  of  Episcopal  administration,  which  according 
to  their  reHgious  principles  they  think  necessary  to  them. 

If  the  Supremacy  of  the  Crown  be  (as  it  has  been  often  styled)  a 
rich  jewel  in  the  Crown  of  England,  it  should  be  considered  that  the 
Supremacy  is  maintained  and  obeyed  by  the  Establish d  Church  only. 
Dissenters  of  all  kinds  are  discharged  from  all  regard  to  it,  and  are  at 
full  liberty  to  act  for  themselves  in  religious  affairs,  without  taking  the 
consent  or  even  advice  of  the  Crown  :  and  therefore  they  make  what 
Ministers  they  please.  But  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  England  in 
America  want  their  first  and  most  necessary  Member,  a  Bp.  to  reside 
with  them  ;  and  have  waited  with  patience  for  the  consent  of  the  Crown  ; 
and  their  bretheren  at  home,  the  Bps.  of  England  and  the  Society  for 
Propagating  the  Gospel,  have  often  been  intercessors  to  the  Crown  on 
their  behalf. 

The  objections  to  settling  Bishops  in  the  Plantations  are  chiefly  these 
two. 

I.    It  is  doubted  whether  it  will  be  agreeable  to  the  People  there. 


SHERLOCK'S  REPORT.  341 

2.  It  is  doubted  whether  any  maintenance  can  be  had  for  such 
Bishops. 

As  to  the  first  point :  As  no  Bishops  are  propos'd  to  be  settled  in 
Pensilvania,  or  New  England,  or  the  Colonies  thereto  belonging,  it  is 
to  no  purpose  to  enquire  of  their  inclination ;  they  are  not  concern'd 
themselves  and  have  no  right  to  judge  for  others.  This  question  there- 
fore can  relate  only  to  those  parts  where  the  Church  of  England  is  estab- 
lished and  profess'd,  and  with  respect  to  them  and  to  know  clearly  what 
their  sentiments  are,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  Episcopacy  with  respect 
to  the  Duties  belonging  to  it  as  an  Order  in  the  Christian  Church,  and 
with  respect  to  the  Powers  of  Jurisdiction  derived  to  it  from  the  Civil 
Magistrate. 

In  the  first  view,  their  own  laws  will  shew  that  they  have  no  objection. 
To  begin  with  — 

South  Carolina.  By  Acts  of  Assembly  there,  all  Churches  and 
Parishes  are  to  be  served  by  Ministers  Episcopally  ordained,  (vide  the 
Act  called  the  Church  Act)  &  with  respect  to  the  Schoolmaster  of  their 
own  Free  School,  it  is  enacted  that  he  shall  be  of  the  religion  of  the 
Church  of  England  2xA  conform  to  the  same.  (Vide  Free  School  Act) 
and  by  an  Additional  Act  to  the  Free  School  Act,  special  encouragement 
is  given  to  the  Ministers  recommended  by  the  Bp.  of  London. 

North  Carolina.  It  is  enacted  that  all  Statute  Laws  made  in  England 
for  the  Establishment  of  the  Church,  shall  be  in  force  here. 

Virginia.  Enacted,  that  no  Minister  be  admitted  to  officiate  in  this 
country,  but  such  as  have  received  Ordinatioti  from  some  Bishop  in 
England. 

Maryland.  All  places  for  Public  Worship  according  to  the  Usage 
of  the  Church  of  E?igland,  shall  be  deemed  settled  and  established 
Churches. 

Barbadoes.  The  Church  of  England  established  by  Act  of  Gen^ 
Assembly;  and  the  maintenance,  provided  for  the  better  encour- 
agem'  of  the  Clergy,  is  appropriated  to  the  Orthodox  Ministers  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

Antegoa.  By  act  of  Assembly,  none  capable  of  being  presented  to 
Benfices,  unless  they  produce  testimonials  that  they  are  qualified  accord- 
ing to  the  Canons  of  the  Church  of  England ;  by  having  taken  Deacons 
and  Priests  Orders. 

Nevis.  By  Act  of  Assembly  Maintenance  provided  for  Ministers  of 
the  Church  of  England, 

Leeward  Islands.    By  Act  of  Assembly,  the  Governor  may  suspend  an 


342  APPENDIX  A. 

Incumbent  giving  notice  thereof  to  the  Bp.  of  London,  that  his  Lordship 
may  give  such  directions  therein,  as  to  him  shall  seem  meet. 

Jamaica.  None  to  be  capable  of  a  Benefice  unless  they  produce 
testimonials  that  they  are  qualified  according  to  the  Canons  of  the 
Church  of  England  by  having  taken  Deacons  and  Priests   Orders. 

By  these  Acts  of  Assembly  it  is  plain  that  they  have  no  objection 
ag''  Bishops,  in  the  religious  view,  so  far  from  it,  that  they  admit  no 
Minister  to  serve  in  the  Churches  supported  by  Publick  Maintenance, 
but  such  as  are  Episcopally  ordained.  And  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  they  wo*^  be  unwilling  a  Bp.  should  reside  among  them,  where 
his  authority  &  influence  might  be  of  great  use  in  the  due  governm'  & 
direction  of  the  Clergy ;  provided  that  a  Bp.  residing  with  them  had 
power  to  do  no  more  than  they  are  now  desirous  sho^  be  done  by  a 
Bishop  at  a  distance. 

But  the  difficulty  arises  from  the  2"*^  view ;  and  the  question  is,  how 
far  they  will  be  contented  to  admit  the  jurisdiction  w'''^  the  Bps.  in 
England  have  in  many  cases,  by  and  under  the  Crown. 

As  the  first  planters  in  America  were  members  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  carried  over  with  them  a  regard  to  the  government  and 
discipline  of  their  Mother  Church ;  there  is  no  doubt  to  be  made  but 
that  they  would  very  wiUingly  have  continued  under  the  same  Ecclesi- 
astical Government  &  Discipline  in  America,  under  which  they  had  been 
bred  in  England,  had  they  had  any  Bps.  among  them  at  their  first  settle- 
ment abroad.  But  being  destitute  of  Bps.  and  for  some  years  deprived 
of  Publick  Church  Communion  for  want  of  Ministers  regularly  ordain'd  ; 
it  is  more  to  be  wondered  at  that  they  have  adhered  so  steadily  to  the 
Communion  of  the  Church  of  England  with  respect  to  Episcopal  Ordi- 
nation and  the  established  Liturgy,  than  that  they  have  some  prejudice 
against  Ecclesiastical  Courts  and  Jurisdictions  of  Bps.  of  which  they  have 
seen  and  known  so  little  for  many  years.  Many  things  which  are  under 
the  care  and  authority  of  Bps.  in  England,  are  things  necessary  to  be 
done  by  somebody,  and  where  there  are  no  Bps.  they  must  be  done  by 
some  other  authority.  Such  are  the  repairs  of  Churches  and  the  pro- 
viding books  and  other  necessaries  for  the  service,  the  Instituting  and 
inducting  Incumbents,  the  repairs  of  Glebe  Houses,  the  Probate  of  Wills, 
Licence  for  Marriage,  examining  and  approving  Clergymen,  and  School- 
masters, and  the  correction  of  vice  and  immorality  by  coercive  power. 
As  the  Colonies  had  no  Bps.  to  discharge  these  duties  they  were  neces- 
sitated to  provide  for  them  otherwise.  And  therefore  these  powers  are 
placed  by  several  Acts  of  Assembly,  partly  in  the  Churchwardens,  partly 


SHERLOCK'S  REPORT.  343 

in  Justices  of  the  Peace,  and  partly  in  the  Governors  of  the  respective 
Provinces. 

That  these  provisions  were  made  for  want  of  a  Bp.  among  them,  and 
not  out  of  dislike  to  Episcopal  Authority  appears  from  the  Act  of 
Assembly  of  the  Leeward  Islands  before  mentioned,  by  which  the 
Governor  is  empowered  to  suspend  Clergymen,  but  it  passed  under 
an  obligation  of  giving  notice  to  the  Bp.  of  London,  and  of  taking  his 
directions.  Had  there  been  a  Bp.  among  them,  can  it  be  supposed 
the[y]  would  not  have  referr'd  the  matter  directly  to  him? 

The  present  generation  of  men  in  the  Colonies  being  born  and  bred 
under  this  Constitution,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  they  are  attached 
to  the  custom  of  their  country,  and  would  be  alarm'd  at  the  apprehen- 
sion of  having  their  powers  remov'd  out  of  their  hands,  in  w""*  the  law 
of  their  country  had  plac'd  them,  and  put  into  the  hands  of  a  Bp'.  with 
whose  power  in  these  cases  they  are  unacquainted  :  and  therefore  these 
powers  exercis'd  in  the  Consistory  Courts  in  England  are  not  desired  for 
Bps.  residing  in  America. 

But  these  Colonies  however  unaccustomed  to  Episcopal  Jurisdiction 
have  always  been  brought  up  in  an  opinion  that  their  Clergy  must  be 
Episcopally  Ordained.  And  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  they  had 
rather  have  their  Children  come  to  England  for  Orders  than  to  have 
a  Bp.  among  them  to  Ordain  them  at  home,  and  as  they  are  members 
of  the  Church  of  England  and  have  received  it's  liturgy,  they  cannot 
look  into  it  without  seeing  that  for  want  of  a  Bp.  among  them  they  and 
their  Children  are  debarr'd  from  Confirmation 

That  there  have  been  jealousies  in  some  of  the  Plantations  of  an 
Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction,  is  certain  from  some  Acts  of  their  x'\ssembly. 
In  the  Church  Act  of  Antegoa  (w'^''  passed  July  i''  1692.)  it  is  enacted, 
that  no  Ecclesiastical  Law  or  Jurisdiction  shall  have  power  to  eiiforce 
confirm  or  establish  any  penal  mulct  or  punishment  in  any  case  whatso- 
ever. 

There  is  the  like  clause  in  the  Church  Act  of  Jamaica. 

If  by  Penal  Mulct  or  Punishment  is  to  be  understood  the  imposing 
fines  upon  offenders,  it  is  hard  to  say  what  gave  occasion  to  this  Proviso  ; 
it  could  not  be  to  guard  against  the  Ecclesiastical  Law  of  England,  for 
the  Ecclesiastical  Court  in  England  neither  does  nor  can  impose  Fines. 

There  is  the  same  Law  in  Barbadoes  against  Penal  Mulcts  by  Eccle- 
siastical Law.  But  whatever  gave  occasion  to  it,  it  is  certain  it  never 
was  meant  ags'  the  Authority  exercis'd  by  the  Bp.  in  the  case  of  religion 
or  in  the  government  of  the  Clergy ;  for  it  is  declared  in  a  subsequent 


344  APPENDIX  A. 

statute  that  the  s"^  clause  sho**  not  extend  to  the  exercise  of  Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction  over  the  Clergy,  according  to  the  tenour  of  His  Majesty's 
Commission  to  the  Bp.  of  London.  The  construction  upon  these  two 
Acts  must  be  this ;  that  they  are  not  willing  to  receive  Ecclesiastical 
Courts  with  Coercive  Powers,  but  are  desirous  of  receiving  Bishops  as 
an  Order  of  the  Christian  Church,  to  inspect  the  conduct  and  behaviour 
of  the  Clergy,  and  to  perform  the  duties  of  their  Office  in  examining 
and  ordaining  Ministers  for  the  service  of  the  Church. 

Let  them  at  least  have  such  Bps.  among  them  as  they  are  willing  to 
receive. 

There  have  been  Commissaries  acting  under  the  Bp.  of  London,  ever 
since  Bp.  Compton's  time,  and  no  complaint  has  been  made  of  their 
power  being  too  great  or  any  ways  burdensome  to  the  Country;  and 
if  Suffragan  Bishops  with  the  same  Ecclesiastical  Powers  that  the  Com- 
missaries have  had,  were  settled  in  the  Plantations,  it  could  make  no 
alteration  with  respect  to  the  Civil  Governm'  or  to  the  people,  but  it 
will  enable  the  Church  of  England  there  to  do  what  all  Churches  of 
all  denominations  have  thought  necessary  to  their  very  being,  to  provide 
a  succession  for  the  Ministry  among  themselves :  a  right  which  the 
Established  Church  of  England  in  the  Plantations  has  been  long  deprived 
of,  and  w'^^  as  far  as  I  can  judge,  no  other  Christian  Church  in  the  world 
ever  wanted.  Every  sect  of  Christians,  under  the  Toleration,  claims  it 
as  their  right,  and  exercises  it ;  and  it  seems  but  reasonable  to  hope  that 
an  Established  Church  should  enjoy  the  rights  of  a  Church  in  equal 
degree  at  least  with  tolerated  societies  of  Dissenters. 

The  other  objection  is,  —  How  shall  Bishops  in  America  be  main- 
tained? Not  by  Tax  or  imposition  on  the  People  certainly.  If  Bps. 
were  to  be  sent  them,  and  the  country  laid  under  contribution,  Bishops 
would  be  received  as  Excise  Men  and  Taxgath\er'\ers  ;  and  this  appre- 
hension in  the  people  abroad,  of  being  burden'd  with  the  maintenance 
of  Bishops,  would  be  the  readiest  way  to  raise  an  opposition  in  the 
Colonies  to  the  settlement  of  the  Bps.  among  them. 

Nor  ought  the  Crown  to  be  burdened  with  the  maintenance  of  such 
Bps,  or  put  to  more  expence  than  what  already  lyes  upon  the  Crown  in 
providing  Clergy  for  the  Plantations.  And  yet  there  will  not  want 
means  to  provide  a  decent  support  for  them  by  annexing  some  prefer- 
ments abroad  to  these  Bishopricks  and  by  giving  the  Bp.  a  capacity  of 
receiving  Benefactions  from  such  as  will  be  ready  to  promote  so  good 
a  design. 

But  as  the  care  to  maintain  them  will  be  premature  till  His  Majesty's 


CHANDLER'S  LETTERS,  1767.  345 

pleasure  is  known  as  to  the  appointing  them  it  may  wait  His  Majesty's 
determination. 

As  the  Bp.  of  London  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the  Bp.  principally 
if  not  only  concern'd  in  the  Plantations  :  He  desires  to  say  one  word 
for  himself,  and  to  assure  Your  Majesty  that  however  necessary  to  the 
state  of  Religion  &  the  Churches  abroad,  he  apprehends  the  settlem'  of 
Bps,  in  America  to  be,  and  however  sensible  he  is  that  with  the  Authority 
granted  to  the  late  Bishop  of  London,  he  co**  by  no  means  answer  the 
good  purposes  intended  by  Your  Majesty ;  yet  he  submits  himself  to 
your  Royal  Pleasure,  and  whatever  part  you  in  your  royal  wisdom  shall 
think  fit  to  allot  to  him,  he  will  discharge  it  to  the  best  of  his  abiUty. 

[Indorsed] 

Rec**  with  the  Bishop's  Ire  of  19  Feb'.  1759. 
Read  Feb"'  21.  1759. 

Xin.  REV.  THOMAS  BRADBURY  CHANDLER  TO  THE  BISHOP 
OF  LONDON,  STATING  HIS  REASONS  FOR  WRITING  THE 
APPEAL  TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

From  the  Manuscripts  in  the  Fulham  Library. 

Elizabethtown,  New  Jersey, 

October  21,  1767. 

Having  been  prevailed  upon  to  draw  up,  and  publish,  a  Pamphlet 
on  the  Subject  of  an  American  Episcopate,  I  have  taken  the  Liberty  to 
send  your  Lordship  a  Copy  of  it,  which  is  the  Occasion  of  my  being 
troublesome  at  this  Time.  The  most  that  I  can  say  in  Favor  of  the 
Performance  is,  that  it  expresses  the  Opinion  of  the  Clergy  in  most  of 
the  Colonies,  of  the  Case  of  the  American  Church  of  England,  and 
represents  some  of  those  Reasons  and  Facts,  upon  which  their  Opinion 
is  founded.  There  are  some  other  Facts  and  Reasons,  which  could  not 
be  prudently  mentioned  in  a  Work  of  this  Nature,  as  the  least  Intimation 
of  them  would  be  of  ill  Consequence  in  this  irritable  Age  and  Country : 
but  were  they  known,  they  would  have  a  far  greater  Tendency  to  engage 
such  of  our  Superiors,  if  there  be  any  such,  as  are  governed  altogether 
by  political  Motives,  to  espouse  the  Cause  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
America,  than  any  contained  in  the  Pamphlet.  But  I  must  content 
myself  with  having  proposed  those  only  which  could  be  mentioned 
safely,  and  leave  the  Event  to  Divine  Providence. 

I  could  heartily  wish,  My  Lord,  that  my  feeble  Attempt  might  be  a 


346  APPENDIX  A. 

Means  of  engaging  some  Person  at  Home,  who  can  command  the  Atten- 
tion of  the  PubHc,  to  take  the  Cause  in  Hand,  and  set  it  forth  to  Advantage. 
Even  my  Appeal  it  is  hoped  may  have  some  good  effect  here  ;  but  I  fear 
it  will  hardly  bear  reading  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic. 


XIV.  LEGISLATION  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 
TO  PROVIDE  BISHOPS,  PRIESTS,  AND  DEACONS  FOR  THE 
CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF 
AMERICA. 

I. 

An  Act  to  impower  the  Bishop  of  London  for  the  Time  being,  or  any 
other  Bishop  to  be  by  him  appointed,  to  admit  to  the  Order  of  Deacon 
or  Priest,  Persons  being  Subjects  or  Citizens  of  Countries  out  of  his 
Majesty's  Dominions,  without  requiring  them  to  take  the  Oath  of  Alle- 
giance as  appointed  by  Law. 

Statutes  at  Large^  24  George  III.  Cap.  XXXV. 

Whereas,  by  the  Laws  of  this  Realm,  every  Person  who  shall  be 
admitted  to  Holy  Orders  is  to  take  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  in  Manner 
thereby  provided  :  And  whereas  there  are  divers  Persons,  Subjects  or 
Citizens  of  Countries  out  of  his  Majesty's  Dominions,  inhabiting  and 
residing  within  the  said  Countries,  who  profess  the  Publick  Worship  of 
Almighty  God  according  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
are  desirous  that  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Sacraments,  should  con- 
tinue to  be  administered  unto  them  according  to  the  said  Liturgy,  by 
Subjects  or  Citizens  of  the  said  Countries,  ordained  according  to  the 
Form  of  Ordination  in  the  Church  of  England;  be  it  enacted  by  the 
King's  most  Excellent  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  Advise  and  Consent  of 
the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,  in  this  present  Parha- 
ment  assembled,  and  by  the  Authority  of  the  same,  That,  from  and  after 
the  passing  of  this  Act,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and  for  the  Bishop 
of  London  for  the  Time  being,  or  any  other  Bishop  by  him  to  be 
appointed,  to  admit  to  the  Order  of  Deacon  or  Priest,  for  the  Purposes 
aforesaid,  Persons  being  Subjects  or  Citizens  of  Countries  out  of  his 
Majesty's  Dominions,  without  requiring  them  to  take  the  Oath  of 
Allegiance. 

H.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  hereby  declared.  That  no  Person, 
ordained  in  the  Manner  herein  before  provided  only,  shall  be  thereby 


ACTS   OF  PARLIAMENT. 


347 


enabled  to  exercise  the  Office  of  Deacon  or  Priest  within  his  Majesty's 
Dominions, 

III.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  the  Letters 
Testimonial  of  Such  Orders,  there  shall  be  inserted  the  Name  of  the 
Person  so  ordained,  with  the  Addition  of  the  Country  whereof  he  is  a 
Subject  or  Citizen,  and  the  further  Description  of  his  not  having  taken 
the  said  Oath  of  Allegiance,  being  exempted  from  the  Obligation  of  so 
doing  by  virtue  of  this  Act. 


An  Act  to  impower  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  for  the  Time  being,  to  consecrate  to  the  Office  of  a 
Bishop,  Persons  being  Subjects  or  Citizens  of  Countries  out  of  his 
Majesty's  Dominions. 

Statutes  at  Large,  26  George  III.  Cap.  LXXXIV. 

Whereas,  by  the  Laws  of  this  Realm,  no  Person  can  be  Consecrated 
to  the  Office  of  a  Bishop  without  the  King's  License  for  his  Election  to 
that  Office,  and  the  Royal  Mandate  under  the  Great  Seal  for  his  Con- 
firmation and  Consecration  :  And  whereas  every  Person  who  shall  be  so 
consecrated  to  the  said  Office  is  required  to  take  the  Oaths  of  Allegiance 
and  Supremacy,  and  also  the  Oath  of  due  Obedience  to  the  Archbishop  : 
And  whereas  there  are  divers  Persons,  Subjects,  or  Citizens  of  Countries 
out  of  his  Majesty's  Dominions,  and  inhabiting  and  residing  within  the 
said  Countries,  who  profess  the  Publick  Worship  of  Almighty  God, 
according  to  the  Principles  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  who,  in 
order  to  provide  a  regular  Succession  of  Ministers  for  the  Service  of 
their  Church,  are  desirous  of  having  certain  of  the  Subjects  or  Citizens 
of  those  Countries  consecrated  Bishops,  according  to  the  Form  of 
Consecration  in  the  Church  of  England:  Be  it  enacted  by  the  King's 
most  Excellent  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of  the 
Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,  in  this  present  Parliament 
assembled,  and  by  the  Authority  of  the  same.  That  from  and  after  the 
passing  of  this  Act,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and  for  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  or  the  Archbishop  of  York,  for  the  Time  being,  together 
with  such  other  Bishops  as  they  shall  call  to  their  Assistance,  to  conse- 
crate Persons,  being  Subjects  or  Citizens  of  Countries  out  of  his  Majesty's 
Dominions,  Bishops,  for  the  Purposes  aforesaid,  without  the  King's 
License  for  their  Election,  or  the  Royal  Mandate,  under  the  Great  Seal, 
for  their  Confirmation  and  Consecration,  and  without  requiring  them  to 


348  APPENDIX  A. 

take  the  Oaths  of  Allegiance  and  Supremacy,  and  the  Oath  of  Obedience 
to  the  Archbishop  for  the  Time  being. 

II.  Provided  always,  That  no  Persons  shall  be  consecrated  Bishops 
in  the  Manner  herein  provided,  until  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or 
the  Archbishop  of  York,  for  the  Time  being,  shall  have  first  applied  for 
and  obtained  his  Majesty's  License,  by  Warrant  under  his  Royal  Signet 
and  Sign  Manual,  authorizing  and  empowering  him  to  perform  such 
Consecration,  and  expressing  the  Name  or  Names  of  the  Persons  So  to 
be  consecrated,  nor  until  the  said  Archbishop  has  been  fully  ascertained 
of  their  Sufficiency  in  good  Learning,  of  the  Soundness  of  their  Faith, 
and  of  the  Purity  of  their  Manners. 

III.  Provided  also,  and  be  it  hereby  declared.  That  no  Person  or 
Persons  consecrated  to  the  Office  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Manner  aforesaid, 
nor  any  Person  or  Persons  deriving  their  Consecration  from  or  under 
any  Bishop  so  consecrated,  nor  any  Person  or  Persons  admitted  to  the 
Order  of  Deacon  or  Priest  by  any  Bishop  or  Bishops  so  consecrated,  or 
by  the  Successor  or  Successors  of  any  Bishop  or  Bishops  so  consecrated, 
shall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exercise  his  or  their  respective  Office  or 
Offices  within  his  Majesty's  Dominions. 

IV.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  further  enacted.  That  a  Certificate 
of  such  Consecration  shall  be  given  under  the  Hand  and  Seal  of  the 
Archbishop  who  consecrates,  containing  the  Name  of  the  Person  so 
consecrated,  with  the  Addition,  as  well  of  the  Country  whereof  he  is  a 
Subject  or  Citizen,  as  of  the  Church  in  which  he  is  appointed  Bishop, 
and  the  further  Description  of  his  not  having  taken  the  said  Oaths,  being 
exempted  from  the  Obligation  of  so  doing  by  virtue  of  this  Act. 


APPENDIX  B. 

LIST  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY  AND  BISHOPS 

OF    LONDON    DURING    THE    SEVENTEENTH    AND  EIGH- 
TEENTH  CENTURIES.i 

Archbishops  of  Canterbury. 

Richard  Bancroft  .........  1604 

George  Abbot 1611 

William  Laud 1633 

William  Juxon        .........  1660 

Gilbert  Sheldon 1663 

William  Sancroft .         .         .  1677 

John  Tillotson        .........  1691 

Thomas  Tenison    .........  1695 

Wilham  Wake 1716 

John  Potter 1737 

Thomas  Herring 1747 

Matthew  Hutton 1757 

Thomas  Seeker      .........  1758 

Frederick  Cornwallis .1 768 

John  Moore 1 783-1805 

Bishops  of  London. 

Thomas  Ravis 1607 

George  Abbot 1609 

John  King 161 1 

George  Monteigne 162 1 

WiUiam  Laud 1628 

WiUiam  Juxon 1633 

Gilbert  Sheldon 1660 

Humphrey  Henchman 1663 

Henry  Compton 1675 

John  Robinson      .         .         .         .         .         .         •         .         •  17^3 

Edmund  Gibson 1723 

Thomas  Sherlock .         .         .  1 748 

Thomas  Hayter 1761 

Richard  Osbaldeston 1762 

Richard  Terrick 1 7^4 

Robert  Lowth 1777-1787 

iStubbs,  Registrum,  2d  ed.,  III-146;  Le  Neve,  Fasti,  I.,  26-31,  II.,  303-306; 
Perceval,  Succession,  Appendix,  106-121;  Abbey,  English  Church  and  Bishops,  II., 
Appendix,  pp.  357,  359  (for  eighteenth  century). 


APPENDIX   C. 

A  LIST  OF   SPECIAL  WORKS. 

This  bibliography  aims  to  include  all  books,  manuscripts,  pamphlets, 
newspapers,  periodicals,  broadsides,  official  records,  or  other  collections 
of  material  which  contain  important  information  regarding  the  relations 
between  the  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  American  Colonies.  It  has 
not  been  thought  necessary  to  repeat  here  the  titles  of  works  which  are 
necessarily  consulted  by  students  of  any  phase  of  American  colonial 
history. 

Among  the  great  American  and  English  libraries  the  author  has  found 
the  following  most  useful :  the  Harvard  University  Library,  the  Boston 
Public  Library,  the  library  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  the 
Boston  Athenaeum,  the  John  Carter  Brown  Library  of  Providence,  the 
Bishop  of  London's  library  at  Fulham,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury's 
library  at  Lambeth,  the  British  Museum,  and  the  Public  Record  Office  at 
London.  The  Fulham  and  Lambeth  libraries  and  the  British  Museum 
were  especially  rich  in  hitherto  unpublished  manuscripts  and  rare 
pamphlets,  some  of  which  are  to  be  found  printed  in  appendices  to 
this  work. 

For  all  matters  relating  to  the  history  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
America  the  student  is  primarily  and  chiefly  indebted  to  Francis  Lister 
Hawks  and  William  Stevens  Perry,  pioneers  in  this  field  both  as  historians 
and  historiographers.  The  value  of  their  histories,  for  the  purposes  of 
the  present  writer  at  least,  consisted  mainly  in  the  documents  or  extracts 
there  printed.  But  these  collections,  largely  made  up  of  transcripts  from 
the  Fulham  and  Lambeth  manuscripts  and  the  letter  books  of  the  So- 
ciety for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  are  not  altogether  adequate.  In  the 
first  place,  they  contain  practically  no  material  on  New  Hampshire, 
Rhode  Island,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  the  Carolinas,  or  Georgia  —  the 
printing  of  the  CaroHna  series  was  begun,  but,  owing  to  a  lack  of  funds, 
was  never  finished.  In  the  second  place,  many  documents  of  an  inter- 
colonial character,  such  as  did  not  primarily  concern  any  of  the  particular 
colonies  included  in  the  collection,  find  no  place.  And  finally,  even  in 
the  case  of  particular  colonies,  there  are  a  few  important  omissions. 


LIST  OF  SPECIAL    WORKS.  35 1 

Oftentimes,  too,  the  extracts  given  are  provokingly  short  for  the  purposes 
of  the  present  study. 

Besides  the  manuscripts  and  pamphlets  in  the  Enghsh  hbraries 
enumerated  above,  and  the  printed  collections  of  Perry  and  Hawks,  the 
records  of  the  various  colonies  furnish  much  valuable  and  interesting 
material.  Specially  worthy  of  note  are  the  documents  relating  to  the 
Colonial  History  of  New  York,  the  New  Jersey  Archives,  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Archives,  and  the  Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina.  It  is 
unfortunate  that  the  North  Carolina  Records  have  no  index ;  but  the 
serious  student  will  be  well  repaid  for  turning  the  ten  thousand  odd  pages 
of  this  extremely  valuable  work. 

The  publications  of  some  of  the  historical  societies  contain  much  that 
is  of  use.  This  is  particularly  true  in  the  case  of  the  Massachusetts, 
Virginia,  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Protestant  Episcopal  Histori- 
cal Societies. 

Another  fertile  source,  especially  on  the  subject  of  the  attempt  to 
introduce  bishops,  are  the  pubUcations  of  the  Society  for  Propagating 
the  Gospel,  notably  the  series  of  annual  sermons  and  abstracts  of  pro- 
ceedings. Of  these  latter  the  John  Carter  Brown  Library  has  a  com- 
plete set. 

Abbey,  C.  J.  The  English  Church  and  Bishops  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century.     2  vols.     London,  1887. 

An  Address  from  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  to  the 
Episcopalians  in  Virginia.     New  York,  17  71. 

The  Humble  Address  of  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lords  Spiritual  and 
Temporal,  in  Parliament  assembled,  presented  to  her  Majesty  the 
Queen,  on  Wednesday,  the  Thirteenth  Day  of  March,  1705,  relating  to 
the  Province  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  Petition  therein  mentioned,  with 
her  Majesty's  Most  Gracious  Answer  thereunto,     pp.  4.    London,  1705. 

An  Advertisement.  [Being  an  Attack  on  Mayhew's  Observations.] 
Providence,  1763. 

The  American  Whig,  A  Collection  of  Tracts  from  the  Late  News- 
papers, etc.     2  vols.     John  Holt,  New  York,  1768,  1769. 

Anderson,  J.  S.  M.  History  of  the  Colonial  Churches.  3  vols. 
London,  1848. 

h.x\.  Appendix  to  the  Life  of  Archbishop  Seeker.  American  edition. 
New  York,  1774. 

Apthorp,  East.  Considerations  on  the  Character  and  Conduct  of 
the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel.     Boston,  1763. 


352  APPENDIX   C. 

Apthorp,  East.  A  Review  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  Remarks  on  the  Answer 
to  his  Observations,  etc.     London,  1765. 

Baldwin,  Simeon  E.  The  American  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  in  Colonial  Times,  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings, 
New  Series,  xiii.  179-221.     Worcester,  1900, 

Beach,  John.  A  Calm  and  Dispassionate  Vindication  of  the  Profes- 
sors of  the  Church  of  England.     1 749. 

Beach,  John.  A  Continuation  of  the  Calm  and  Dispassionate  Vindi- 
cation of  the  Church  of  England  against  Mr.  Noah  Hobart.     Boston, 

1751- 

Beardsley,  E.  E.     History  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut 

[1635-1865].     2  vols.     New  York,  1883. 

Beardsley,  E.  E.  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Samuel  Johnson,  D.D., 
Missionary  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Connecticut  and  First  Presi- 
dent of  King's  College.     Boston,  1881. 

Beardsley,  E.  E.  Life  and  Times  of  William  Samuel  Johnson,  LL.D. 
New  York,  1876. 

Blackburne,  Francis.  A  Critical  Commentary  on  Archbishop 
Seeker's  Letter  to  Horatio  Walpole.     London,  1770. 

Bradford,  Alden.  Memoir  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of  the  Reverend 
Jonathan  Mayhew.     Boston,  1838. 

Br.\y,  Thomas.  The  Acts  of  Dr.  Bray's  Visitation  held  at  Annapolis 
in  Maryland,  May  23,  24,  25,  Anno  1700.  [Dedicated  to  the  Bishop  of 
London.]     London,  1700. 

Bray,  Thomas.  A  Memorial  representing  the  Present  State  of  Re- 
ligion on  the  Continent  of  North  America.     London,  1701. 

Browne,  Arthur.  Remarks  on  Dr.  Mayhew's  Incidental  Reflections 
relative  to  the  Church  of  England  as  contained  in  his  Observations,  etc. 
By  a  Son  of  the  Church  of  England.     Portsmouth,  1763. 

Caner,  Henry.  A  Candid  Examination  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observa- 
tions concerning  the  Character  and  Conduct  of  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel.  [With  an  Appendix  containing  a  Vindica- 
tion of  the  Society  by  one  of  its  Members  —  Samuel  Johnson.]     Boston, 

1763- 

Caswall,  Henry.  America  and  the  American  Church.  2d  ed. 
London,  1851. 

Caswall,  Henry.  The  American  Church  and  the  American  Union. 
London,  1861. 

Chandler,  Thomas  B.  An  Appeal  to  the  Public  in  behalf  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  America.     New  York,  1767. 


LIST  OF  SPECIAL    WORKS.  353 

Chandler,  Thomas  B.  An  Appeal  defended :  or,  The  Proposed 
Episcopate  Vindicated.     New  York,  1769. 

Chandler,  Thomas  B.  An  Appeal  farther  defended,  in  Answer  to 
the  Farther  Misrepresentations  of  Dr.  Chauncy.     New  York,  1771. 

Chandler,  Thomas  B.  A  Free  Examination  of  the  Critical  Commen- 
tary on  Archbishop  Seeker's  Letter  to  Mr.  Walpole  [by  F.  Blackburne]. 
With  a  copy  of  Bishop  Sherlock's  Memorial,     New  York,  1774. 

Chandler,  Thomas  B.  The  Life  of  Samuel  Johnson,  the  First  Presi- 
dent of  King's  College  in  New  York.     New  York,  1805. 

Chauncy,  Charles.  An  Appeal  to  the  Public  Answered,  in  behalf  of 
the  Non-episcopal  Churches  in  America.     Boston,  1 768. 

Chauncy,  Charles.  A  Reply  to  Dr.  Chandler's  Appeal  defended. 
Boston,  1770. 

Chauncy,  Charles.  A  Letter  to  a  Friend  containing  Remarks 
on  Certain  Passages  in  a  Sermon  preached  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  John, 
Lord  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  before  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel  at  their  Anniversary  Meeting,  20  Feb.,  1767,  in  which  the 
Highest  Reproach  is  undeservedly  cast  on  the  American  Colonies. 
Boston,  1767. 

Clark,  Samuel  A.  History  of  St.  John's  Church,  Elizabethtown,  N.  J., 
from  1703  to  the  Present  Time.     New  York  and  Philadelphia,  1857. 

Collier,  Jeremy.  Ecclesiastical  History  of  England.  2  vols.  Lon- 
don, 1 708-1 714. 

CoRNELisoN,  I.  A.  The  Relation  of  Religion  to  Civil  Government 
in  the  United  States.     New  York  and  London,  1895. 

CuTTS,  E.  L.    ADictionary  of  the  Church  of  England.    London,  1887. 

Dalcho,  Frederick.  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  South-Carolina  from  the  First  Settlement  of  the  Prov- 
ince to  the  War  of  the  Revolution.     Charleston,  S.C.,  1820. 

Eliot,  Andrew.  Remarks  on  the  Bishop  of  Oxford's  [Seeker's] 
Sermon  before  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
Parts.  Boston,  1740.  [Also  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, Vol.  II,  2d  Series,  pp.  190-216.  Extracts  were  published  in 
England  by  Rev.  Francis  Blackburne.] 

Evans,  H.  D.,  Ed.  Bishop  Christopher  Wordsworth's  Theophilus 
Americanus.     Philadelphia,  1859, 

Fleming,  Caleb.  A  Supplement  to  a  Letter  to  a  Friend,  by  a  Pres- 
byter in  Old  England.     London,  1768. 

FooTE,  H.  W.  Annals  of  King's  Chapel.  [2d  vol.  completed  by 
H.  H.  Edes.]     2  vols.     Boston,  1882-1896. 

23 


354  .  APPENDIX  C. 

Fowler,  William  C.  Article  on  Charles  Chauncy  (i 705-1 787)  in 
Charles  Chauncy,  his  Ancestors  and  Descendants.  (New  England  His- 
torical and  Genealogical  Register.)    October,  1S56.    Vol.  X., pp. 323-329. 

Fuller,  Thos.  Church  History  of  Britain  to  1648.  Ed.  J.  L.  Brewer. 
4th  ed.     6  vols.     Oxford,  1845. 

GvvATKiN,  Thomas.  A  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  occasioned  by  an  Address  to  the  EpiscopaUans  in  Virginia. 
Williamsburgh,  1772. 

Hartwell,  Blair,  and  Chilton.  The  Present  State  of  Virginia. 
London,  1727. 

Hawkins,  Ernest.  Historical  Notices  of  the  Missions  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  America  to  1783.     London,  1845. 

Hawks,  F.  L.  Contributions  to  American  Church  History.  2  vols. 
I.  Virginia.     H.    Maryland.     New  York,  1 836-1 839. 

Hawks,  F.  L.  Efforts  to  obtain  a  Colonial  Episcopate  before  the 
Revolution.  In  Protestant  Episcopal  Historical  Society  Collection,  L 
136-157.     2  vols.     New  York,  185 1-1853. 

Hawks,  F.  L.,  and  Perry,  W.  S.  Documentary  History  of  the 
Church  in  the  United  States.  Connecticut.  2  vols.  New  York,  1863- 
1864. 

Hawks,  F.  L.,  and  Perry,  W.  S.  No.  i  of  South  Carolina  [incom- 
plete].    New  York,  1862. 

Heylyn,  Peter.  Cyprianus  Anglicus,  or  the  History  of  the  Life  and 
Death  of  Wilham  Laud.     2d  ed.     London,  167 1. 

HoBART,  Noah.  A  Serious  Address  to  the  Members  of  the  Episco- 
pal Separation  in  New  England.     Boston,  1748. 

HoBART,  Noah.  A  Second  Address  to  the  Members  of  the  Episco- 
pal Separation  in  New  England.  [Appendix  by  Moses  Dickinson.] 
Boston,  1 75 1. 

Hooker,  Richard.  An  Account  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  in  the  Foreign  Plantations.  Wcek/y  Miscellany,  Vol.  L,  No.  11, 
pp.  79-86.     [Only  2  vols,  of  this  Magazine  appeared.]     London,  1736- 

1738. 

Hoyt,  a.  H.  Sketch  of  the  Life  of  T.  B.  Chandler  [i 726-1790]. 
Boston,  1873.  [Reprinted  from  the  New  England  Historical  and  Gene- 
alogical Register  for  July,  1873,  Vol.  XXVH.,  pp.  227-236.] 

Humphreys,  David.  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel.  London,  1730.  Reprinted  New  York,  1853. 
[The  chapter  on  South  Carolina  is  printed  in  Carroll's  Historical  Col- 
lections.] 


LIST  OF  SPECIAL    WORKS.  ,  355 

Inglis,  Charles.  A  Vindication  of  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff 's  Sermon. 
New  York,  1768. 

Johnson,  Samuel.  Elements  of  Philosophy.  [The  English  edition 
contains  at  the  end  a  letter  entitled,  Impartial  Thoughts  on  an  Ameri- 
can Episcopate.]     London,  1754. 

Jones,  Hugh.     The  Present  State  of  Virginia.     London,  1724. 

Laud,  William.     Autobiography.     Oxford,  1839. 

Leaming,  J.  A  Defence  of  the  Episcopal  Government  of  the  Church. 
New  York,  1766. 

Le  Neve,  John.  Fasti  Ecclesise  Anglicanse,  or  a  Calendar  of  the 
Principal  Ecclesiastical  Dignitaries  in  England  and  Wales,  etc.  3  vols. 
Oxford,  1854. 

A  Letter  to  the  Reverend  Father  in  God  The  Lord  B p  of  L n, 

occasioned  by  a  letter  of  his  Lordship's  to  the  L ds  of  T e,  on 

the  Subject  of  an  Act  of  Assembly  passed  in  the  Year  1748,  entitled  an 
Act  to  Enable  the  Inhabitants  of  this  Colony  to  discharge  their  Publick 
Dues  in  Money  for  the  Ensuing  Year.     From  Virginia.     Pub.  1767. 

Livingstone,  William.  A  Letter  to  John,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  occa- 
sioned by  his  Sermon,  February  20,  1767,  in  which  the  American  Colo- 
nies are  loaded  with  Reproach.     London,  1 768. 

McConnell,  S.  D.  History  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church, 
from  the  Planting  of  the  Colonies  to  the  End  of  the  Civil  War.  New 
York,  189 1. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Observations  on  the  Charter  and  Conduct  of  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel.     London  and  Boston,  1763. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Defence  of  the  Character  and  Conduct,  etc., 
against  a  Candid  Examination  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observations,  etc.,  and 
against  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.     Boston,  1763. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Remarks  on  an  Anonymous  Tract,  entitled  an 
Answer  to  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observations,  etc.     Boston,  1764.     London, 

1765- 

Miller,  Samuel.     Memoirs  of  Rev.  John  Rogers.     New  York,  1813. 

Minutes  of  a  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  Synods  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  and  from  the  Associations  of  Connecticut,  held  annually, 
1 766-1 7  75.     Hartford,  1843. 

Motley,  Daniel  Esten.  Life  of  Commissary  James  Blair,  Founder 
of  William  and  Mary  College,  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in 
Historical  and  Political  Science,  Series  XIX.,  No.  10.      Baltimore,  1901. 

Perceval,  A.  P.  An  Apology  for  the  Doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion.    New  York,  1839. 


356  APPENDIX  C. 

Perry,  G.  G.  A  History  of  the  Church  of  England.  Appendix  on 
the  Church  of  England  in  America  by  J.  A.  Spencer.  New  York, 
1879. 

Perry,  Willum  Stevens.    Bishop  Seabury  and  Bishop  Provost.     1862. 

Perry,  W.  S.  The  Connection  of  the  Church  of  England  with  Early 
American  Discovery.     Portland,  Me.,  1863. 

Perry,  W.  S.     The  Episcopate  in  America.     New  York,  1895. 

Perry,  W.  S.  Historical  Collections  relating  to  the  American  Colo- 
nial Church.  5  vols.  I.  Virginia.  II.  Pennsylvania.  III.  Massachu- 
setts.    IV.,  V.  Maryland,  Delaware.     Hartford,  18 70-1 8 78. 

Perry,  W.  S.  The  History  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church  [1587- 
1883].     2  vols.     Boston,  1885. 

PoRTEUS,  Beilby.  A  Review  of  the  Life  and  Character  of  Arch- 
bishop Seeker.     London,  1797. 

Royce,  M.  S.  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Church  of  England  and  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.    New  York,  1859. 

A  Protestant  Dissenter  of  Old  England.  The  Claims  of  tlie 
Church  of  England  Seriously  Examined,  in  a  Letter  to  the  Author 
[Thomas  Seeker]  of  an  Answer,  etc.     London,  1764. 

Secker,  Thomas.  An  Answer  to  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observations  on  the 
Charter  and  Conduct  of  the  Society.     London,  1764. 

Sherlock,  Thomas.  A  Letter  to  the  Rt.  Hon.  Horatio  Walpole. 
London,  1769. 

Sharpe,  Granville.  Memoirs,  Ed.  Prince  Hoare.  2d  ed.  2  vols. 
London,  1820.     Idi'd.,  1828. 

Sherlock,  Thomas.  A  Circular  Letter  to  the  Commissaries,  19  Sep- 
tember, 1750.  [In  Appendix  to  Chandler's  Johnson;  also  in  his  Fi-ee 
Examination.'] 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel.  Abstracts  of  the  Proceedings 
of  the  Society  appended  to  the  Sermon  preached  at  the  Annual  Meetings 
held  in  the  parish  church  of  St.  Mary-le-Bow.     [1701  to  \']?>t„ passim.'] 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel.  An  Account  of  the  Society. 
London,  1706. 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel.  A  Collection  of  Papers. 
London,  1715. 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel.  Classified  Digest  of  the 
Records,  1 701-1892.  Compiled  by  C.  F.  Pascoe.  3d  ed.  London, 
1893. 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  The  Results  of  180  Years' 
Work  of.     London,  1882. 


LIST  OF  SPECIAL    WORKS.  357 

Stevens,  Abel.  A  History  of  the  Religious  Movement  of  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century  called  Methodism.     3  vols.     New  York,  1858-1861. 

Stille,  Charles  J.  Address  at  the  Bicentennial  of  Christ  Church, 
Philadelphia,  in  a  Memorial  of  the  Proceedings.  Published  by  the 
Christ  Church  Historical  Association.     Philadelphia,  1896. 

Stubbs,  Willlvm.  Registrum  Sacrum  Anglicanum.  2d  ed.  Oxford, 
1897. 

Tiffany,  C.  C.  A  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  New  York,  1895.  [There  is  a  good  bibU- 
ography  of  works  relating  to  the  history  of  the  American  Episcopal 
Church  on  pp.  xvi.-xxiv.] 

Turell,  Ebenezer.  Life  and  Character  of  the  late  Reverend  Dr. 
Benjamin  Coleman.  Boston,  1749.  [Contains  the  Letter  of  the  Hamp- 
shire clergymen  to  the  Bishop  of  London.] 

Tyerman,  L,  The  Life  of  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield.  2  vols. 
London,  1876-1877. 

Virginia's  Cure,  Dedicated  to  Sheldon,  Bishop  of  London,  and  Morley, 
Bishop  of  Winchester.     1662. 

Welles,  Noah,  The  Real  Advantages  which  Ministers  and  People 
may  enjoy,  especially  in  the  Colonies,  by  Conforming  to  the  Church 
of  England,  Faithfully  considered  and  represented  in  a  Letter  to  a 
Young  Gentleman.     1762. 

Welles,  Noah.  A  Vindication  of  the  Validity  and  Divine  Right  of 
Presbyterian  Ordination.     New  Haven,  1767. 

Wetmore,  James.  Vindication  of  the  Professors  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  Connecticut.     1747. 

White,  William.  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States.     [Ed.  B.  F.  De  Costa.]     New  York,  1880. 

WiLBERFORCE,  Samuel.  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  America.     New  York,  1849. 


INDEX. 


Abbot,  George,  Bishop  of  London,  1609- 
161 1,  a  grantee  of  the  second  Virginia 
charter,  in  1609,  10. 

Adams,  John,  his  views  regarding  the  im- 
portance of  the  ecclesiastical  causes  of 
the  Revolution,  159,  269. 

Alison,  Francis,  apprehends  the  speedy 
introduction  of  bishops,  1766,  221. 
See  also  "  Centinel." 

American  episcopate.  See  Resident 
bishops. 

American  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
its  beginnings,  267. 

American  Revolution,  effect  of  the  Epis- 
copal controversies  in  causing,  268- 
272.     .5"^!?  a/so  Episcopal  controversies. 

"American  Whig,"  a  contributor  to  the 
newspaper  controversy,  1 768-1 769,  195, 
publishes  his  first  article,  March  14, 
1768,  196;  couples  ecclesiastical  and 
political  issues,  196-200;  asserts  that 
there  is  widespread  popular  opposition 
to  the  introduction  of  bishops,  200-201. 

"Anatomist,"  the  chief  opponent  of  the 
"Centinel,"  196,  answers  the  "Centi- 
nel's"  arguments,  207-209;  formulates 
two  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the 
newspaper   controversy,    209-210. 

Andros,  Gov.  Edmund,  report  on  the 
church  in  New  England,  28;  relations 
with  Commissary  Blair,  43. 

Apthorp,  East,  publishes  his  Considera- 
tions, 1 763,  the  first  contribution  to  the 
Mayhew  controversy,  146;  his  Review 
of  Dr.  Mayheiu's  Remarks,  the  last 
contribution  to  the  Mayhew  contro- 
versy, 158. 

Asbury.     See  Coke, 

Ashe,  John,  his  mission  to  England,  1704, 
46-47. 

Association.  See  Convention  of  Dele- 
gates. 

"  Atlanticus "  asserts  in  the  London 
Chronicle,  1768,  that  there  is  no  like- 


lihood  of  bishops  being  sent   to   the 
American   colonies,  212. 

Baptists,  Chandler  asserts  that  those  of 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  would 
welcome  American  bishops,  185- 
186. 

Baxter,  Richard,  Chauncy's  quotation  from 
his  Treatise  of  Episcopacy,   179. 

Beach,  John,  publishes  his  Calm  and  Dis- 
passionate Vindication,  143;  his  argu- 
ment, 143-144;  replies  to  Hobart's 
Second  Address,   144. 

Berkeley,  George,  suggests  that  Seabury 
apply  to  the  Scotch  non-jurors,  265. 

Berkeley,  Sir  Wm.,  Governor  of  Virginia, 
articles  relating  to  religion  in  his  in- 
structions, 1650,  17. 

Bishops,  functions  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, 2-8.  For  attempts  to  introduce 
into  the  colonies,  see  Resident  bishops. 

"Bishop's  Palace,"  155-156, 

Blackburne,  Francis,  writes  A  Critical 
Commentary  in  answer  to  Seeker's 
Letter,  1770,  189-190. 

Blair,  James,  appointed  commissary  of 
Virginia  in  1689,  34;  relations  with 
Governors  Andros  and  Nicholson,  43; 
relations  with  the  Virginia  clergy  dur- 
ing Bishop  Robinson's  regime,  43-44; 
sends  Gibson  an  account  of  his  work 
under  Compton  and  Robinson,  1724, 
78;  commissarial  authority  during  the 
Gibson  period,  78-80;  death  in  1743,  80. 

Bland,  Richard,  asserts,  1771,  that  the 
king  has  assented  to  an  Act  of  Assem- 
bly empowering  the  general  court  of 
Virginia  to  exercise  both  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  jurisdiction,  227;  reference 
to,  230. 

Boone,  Joseph,  memorial  against  the 
South  Carolina  Church  Acts  of  1704, 
47-48. 

Boucher,  Jonathan,  extract  from  his  View 


ABBOT  TO   COLMAN;  BENJAMIN: 


359 


of  the  Causes  and  Consequences  of  the 
American  Revolution,  1797,  269. 
■  -  Bray,  Thomas,  appointed  commissary  of 
I  _^  Maryland,  in  1695,  34;  influence  of  his 
Memorial,  34,  93;  fails  to  secure  the 
appointment  of  a  successor,  39-40. 

Browne,  Arthur,  his  Remarks  on  May- 
hevv's  Observations,  150-15 1. 

Brunskill,  John,  deprived  of  his  living  for 
irregularities  of  conduct,  136-137. 

Bull,  W.  T.,  commissary  of  the  Carolinas, 
1716-1723,48-49. 

Butler,  Joseph,  Bishop  of  Durham,  plan 
for  the  establishment  of  an  American 
episcopate,  1750,  122-124.  See  also 
Caner,  Henry,  and  Cutler,  Timothy. 

Calvert,  Governor,  vetoes  a  bill  passed 
by  the  Maryland  Assembly,  1724,  to  set 
up  a  court  for  the  exercise  of  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction,  75-76. 

Camm,  John,  leader  of  the  episcopal  party 
among  the  Virginia  clergy,  231  ff. 

Caner,  Henry,  rector  of  King's  Chapel, 
Boston,  approves  of  Butler's  plan  of 
1750,  124;  his  Candid  Examination  of 
Mayhew's  Observations,  150;  wants  a 
bishop  for  New  England,  1751,  156; 
report  on  the  weakness  of  the  Church 
in  Massachusetts,  1763,  258;  extracts 
from  his  reply  to  Sherlock's  circular 
letter,  1751,  317-318. 

Canterbury,  Archbishop  of,  to  issue  testi- 
monial to  emigrants,  1637,  20;  tempora- 
rily vested  with  the  Bishop  of  London's 
colonial  jurisdiction,  32 ;  list  of  the 
archbishops  occupying  the  see  during 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centu- 
ries, 349.  See  also  Laud,  Sancroft, 
Seeker,  and  Tennison. 

"Centinel,"  a  contributor  to  the  news- 
paper controversy,  1 768-1 769,  195, 
apprehends  civil  dangers  from  the  intro- 
duction of  bishops,  203-204;  his  his- 
torical argument,  205-206. 

Chamberlain,  Mellen,  discussion  of  his 
view  of  the  ecclesiastical  causes  of  the 
American  Revolution,  269-272. 

Chandler,  T.  B.,  views  on  the  political 
consequences  of  withholding  bishops 
from  the  colonies,  113-114;  reasons 
for  writing  the  Appeal  to   the   Public, 


164-165;  writes  a  private  letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  London  on  the  political  im- 
portance of  securing  resident  bishops, 
1767,  165-167;  his  compact  with  Sea- 
bury  and  Inglis,  166;  summary  and  dis- 
cussion of  the  Appeal,  1767,  167-172; 
\i\%  Appeal  Defended,  1769,  176-179;  his 
Appeal  Farther  Defended,  1771,  182— 
186;  evidence  of  his  loyalist  sympa- 
thies, 183-184;  his  Free  Examination 
of  Blackburne's  Critical  Commentary, 
1774,  190-192;  his  assertions  as  to  the 
extent  of  the  opposition  to  bishops 
denied  by  the  "American  Whig,"  200— 
201 ;  argues  that  an  American  episco- 
pate would  be  a  bond  of  union  with  the 
mother  country,  251;  text  of  his  letter 
to  Bishop  Terrick,  stating  his  reasons 
for    writing  the  Appeal  to  the  Public, 

1767.  345-346. 

Chandler-Chauncy  controversy,  164  ff, 

Charles  I.     See  Proclamations. 

Chauncy,  Charles,  answers  assertions  of 
Bishop  Ewer,  in  a  Letter  to  a  Friend, 
1767,  161-163;  publishes  the  Appeal 
Answered,  1768,  172;  his  arguments, 
172-176;  his  Reply  to  Dr.  Chandler'' s 
*^  Appeal  Defended,'''  1770,  1 79-182. 

Checkley,  John,  controversy  with  the 
Massachusetts  Independents,  1723— 
1727,  66-67;  reference  to,  140. 

Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  patriotic 
utterances  of  its  clergy  in  a  letter 
written  in  1 775,  207.  See  Clerical  ap- 
pointments, McClenaghan,  Wm.,  and 
Philips,  Francis. 

Clerical  appointments,  in  the  royal  col- 
onies, 5-6;  in  Maryland,  6;  in  the 
Northern  and  Middle  colonies,  7.  See 
also  McClenaghan,  Wm. 

Coke  and  Asbury,  the  first  superintendents 
of  the  American  Methodists,  267. 

Colbatch,  a  Maryland  clergyman,  pre- 
vented from  going  to  England  for 
Episcopal  consecration  in  1727,  105. 

Colman,  Benjamin,  letters  from  Bishop 
Kennett  relative  to  the  introduction  of 
bishops,  99;  views  on  the  status  of  the 
establishment  in  New  England,  128; 
writes  to  Bishop  Gibson  in  behalf  of  the 
associated  ministers  of  Hampshire 
County,  1734,  140. 


36o 


INDEX. 


Colonies,  number  of  Episcopal  clergymen 
in,  1671  and  1700,  33;  estimate  of  the 
number  of  Episcopalians,  clergy,  and 
parishes  about  1767,  169. 

Commissary,  functions  and  origin  of  the 
office  in  the  colonies,  2-3;  exercise  of 
powers  in  the  colonies,  59 ;  duties 
defined  in  the  Methodus  Procedemii, 
1728,  61-63;  President  Nelson  dis- 
cusses their  powers,  1 770-1 771,  228- 
230;  Dr.  Smith  advocates  their  restora- 
tion, 1762,  247;  see  also  Blair,  Bray, 
Bull,  Camm,  Dawson,  Thos.  and  Wm., 
Garden,  Gordon,  Henderson,  Horrocks, 
Johnson,  Gideon,  Morell,  Price,  Robin- 
son, Wm.,  Wilkinson. 

Commission  for  governing  the  colonies, 
first  form  issued  1634,  18-20;  second 
form  issued  1636,  20;  reprint  of  an 
English  translation  of  the  Commission 
of  1634,  274-277.  See  also  Royal  Com- 
mission of  1728. 

Compton,  Henry,  Bishop  of  London, 
1675-1713,  aims  to  ascertain  the  basis  of 
his  colonial  authority,  15,  25;  consulted 
on  the  condition  of  the  Maryland 
church  in  1676,  24;  translated  to  Lon- 
don in  1675,  25;  evinces  interest  in 
the  colonial  church,  25 ;  clauses  in 
governors'  instructions  relating  to  his 
control  over  colonial  ministers  and 
schoolmasters,  26,  29,  30;  Memorial  of 
1677,  26-27;  efforts  in  behalf  of  the 
colonial  church,  28-29;  seeks  authori- 
zation for  his  colonial  jurisdiction,  29; 
secures  recognition  of  his  jurisdiction  in 
instructions  to  colonial  governors,  30; 
temporarily  deprived  of  his  see  in  1686, 
32;  restored  to  his  see  and  colonial 
authority,  33;  appoints  commissaries, 
33-34;  share  in  founding  the  Society 
in  1 701,  35;  secures  recognition  of  the 
church  in  the  Pennsylvania  charter, 
1680-1681,  36,  37;  connection  with 
the  South  Carolina  Church  Acts  of 
1704,  48;  summary  of  his  work,  51; 
Observalions  concerning  a  suffragan  for 
America,  1707,  97-98;  reprint  of  their 
text,  277-278;  text  of  the  order  of  1686, 
suspending  him  from  the  exercise  of  his 
authority  in  the  colonies,  283. 

Convention  of  the  Clergy  of  New  York 


and  New  Jersey,  origin  and  purpose, 
164-165,  215-216;  Chandler  prints  its 
petitions  of  1765  for  bishops,  1771, 183; 
its  motives  for  desiring  bishops  ques- 
tioned, 202-203;  urges  the  clergy  of 
the  Southern  colonies  to  apply  for 
bishops,  231;  Address  to  the  Episco- 
palians in  Virginia,  1771,  236^238; 
urges  the  necessity  of  bishops  to  pre- 
serve the  colonies  from  revolt,  1771, 
251. 

Convention  of  Delegates,  organized  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  bishops, 
217;  professed  object,  217-218;  its 
first  sitting,  1766,  218;  letter  appended 
to  the  minutes  of  its  first  meeting,  218— 
220;  letter  to  the  London  Dissenting 
Committee  defining  its  aims,  1768,  221- 
223;  states  its  position  on  the  intro- 
duction of  bishops,  222-223;  appoints 
standing  committees  of  correspondence, 
223;  ceases  to  sit  at  the  outbreak  of 
the  Revolution,  225. 

Convention  of  the  New  York  and  New 
Jersey  Presbyterians  and  Connecticut 
Congregationalists.  See  Convention  of 
Delegates. 

Cooper,  Myles,  visits  the  Southern  colonies 
to  agitate  the  introduction  of  American 
bishops,  231. 

"  Country  Clergyman,"  his  view  of  the 
nature  of  the  episcopal  office,  211-212. 

"  Crito  "  couples  episcopacy  and  monarchy 
together,  1768,  213. 

Culpeper,  Lord,  Governor  of  Virginia, 
articles  relating  to  religion  in  instruc- 
tions, 26. 

Cutler,  Timothy,  rector  of  Christ's  Church, 
Boston,  petitions  against  the  holding  of 
a  synod  of  the  New  England  churches, 
1725,  67-68;  becomes  an  Episcopalian, 
102;  joins  in  the  movement  for  an 
American  episcopate,  103;  approves 
of  Butler's  plan  of  1750,  124;  wants  a 
bishop  for  New  England,  1751,  156; 
extracts  from  his  reply  to  Sherlock's 
circular  letter,  1 751,  316-317. 

Dawson,  Thomas,  appointed  commissary 
of  Virginia,  1752,  136;  lack  of  author- 
ity, 136;  connection  with  the  Brunskill 
case,  136-137. 


COLONIES  TO   GIBSON,  EDMUND. 


361 


Dawson,  William,  succeeds  Blair  as  presi- 
dent of  William  and  Mary  College  and 
commissary  in  1743,  80. 

Delft,  the  church  at,  15. 

Dickinson,  John,  a  contributor  to  the 
Newspaper  Controversy  of  1 768-1 769, 

195- 
Dissenting  Committee  of  London,  letters 
to  the  convention  of  Delegates,  223-225. 

Eliot,  Andrew,  Remarks  upon  the  Bishop 
of  Oxford^ s  Sermon,  log-iio. 

English  Dissenters,  influence  in  defeating 
the  project  of  sending  bishops  to  Amer- 
ica, 256-257. 

English  Government,  motives  in  withhold- 
ing resident  bishops,  255-258. 

Episcopacy,  discussions  of  its  relation  to 
independence,  106-108,  H3-114,  166- 
167,  251-252,  254-255. 

Episcopacy  and  the  Revolution,  157,  268- 
272. 

Episcopal  clergymen,  estimated  number 
in  the  colonies  about  1679,  28;  in  1767, 
169. 

Episcopal  controversies,  origin  in  New 
England,  139-140;  change  in  their 
character  with  the  beginning  of  the 
newspaper  contributions,  197,  199— 
200;  influence  in  bringing  on  the 
American  Revolution,  268-272. 

Episcopalians,  estimated  number  in  the 
colonies  in  1767,  169. 

Episcopate.     See  Resident  bishops. 

Establishment,  provisions  for  in  Virginia, 
9,  II,  16-17;  status  in  the  colonies  dis- 
cussed, 69-70,  127-128.  See  also  New 
England,  New  York,  North  Carolina, 
and  South  Carolina. 

Evans,  Evan,  appeals  to  the  Society  for 
resident  bishops,  1707,  95-97. 

Ewer,  John,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  urges  the 
necessity  of  American  bishops  in  a  ser- 
mon before  the  Society,  1767,  161,  191. 

Fauquier,  Governor  of  Virginia,  connec- 
tion with  the  Ramsay  case,  227. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  applies  to  the 
French  bishops  and  the  pope's  nuncio 
at  Paris  for  advice  concerning  Amer- 
ican candidates  for  English  orders, 
263-264. 


Garden,  Alexander,  appointed  commis- 
sary of  the  Carolinas,  1726,  49;  his 
commissarial  activity,  80;  trial  and  sen- 
tence of  George  Whiteheld,  80-S6;  re- 
signs his  commissarial  office  in  1749,  86; 
dies  at  Charleston,  1756,  87;  text  of 
his  reply  to  Sherlock's  circular  letter  of 
1750,  together  with  a  letter  to  Gibson 
of  1741,312-315. 

Gibson,  Edmund,  Bishop  of  London, 
1 723-1 748,  obtains  a  Royal  Commission 
for  exercising  colonial  jurisdiction,  1727- 
1728,12,57;  accession,  52;  expressions 
of  interest  in  the  colonies,  52;  sends  out 
queries  to  the  commissaries,  52-53 ;  ap- 
peals to  the  crown  to  establish  his  juris- 
diction on  a  more  definite  basis,  55-57; 
clauses  inserted  in  the  instructions  of  the 
colonial  governors  relative  to  the  pow- 
ers granted  him  by  the  Royal  Commis- 
sion of  1728,  60;  issues  the  Methodus 
Procedendi,  1 728, 61-63  5  issues  a  procla- 
mation on  the  qualifications  of  clergy- 
men applying  for  licenses  for  service 
in  the  colonies,  1743,  63-64;  attitude 
toward  him  in  Massachusetts,  64-65; 
queries  concerning  the  church  in  Mas- 
sachusetts answered  by  Samuel  Myles, 
rector  of  King's  Chapel,  Boston,  65-66; 
connection  with  the  Checkley  contro- 
versy, 66-67 ;  opposition  to  the  proposed 
New  England  synod,  68-70;  limitations 
of  his  jurisdiction  in  Maryland,  71-73; 
quarrels  with  the  Maryland  proprietary 
and  ceases  to  interest  himself  in  that 
province,  77;  petitions  crown  in  1724 
concerning  presentations  and  induc- 
tions in  Virginia,  79;  summary  of  his 
policy  and  work,  87;  attitude  on  the 
subject  of  an  American  episcopate,  103, 
105,  117;  offers  ;i^iooo  toward  the  sup- 
port of  an  American  bishop,  1745, 
iio-iii;  references  to  his  Patent  by 
President  Nelson,  1770,  1771,  228- 
230;  letter  to,  from  commissary  Gor- 
don, discussing  the  origin  and  scope  of 
the  Bishop  of  London's  jurisdiction, 
1725,  279-282;  copy  of  a  letter  from, 
to  Lord  Howard,  of  Effingham,  gover- 
nor of  Virginia,  1685,  282;  extracts 
from  the  Weekly  Miscellany  relating  to 
his  efforts  to  place  his  jurisdiction  on  a 


362 


INDEX. 


legal  basis,  283-285;  text  of  his  peti- 
tion to  that  effect,  285-286;  text  of 
the  royal  commission  granted  to  him 
in  1728,  289-293. 

Gordon,  William,  commissary  of  the  Bar- 
badoes,  discusses  the  origin  and  scope 
of  the  Bishop  of  London's  authority, 
31,  53-55;  extracts  from  his  letters  on 
this  subject,  279-282. 

Governors,  ecclesiastical  powers  in  the 
colonies,  4-5. 

Green,  John,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  advo- 
cates American  bishops  in  a  sermon 
before  the  Society,  1768,  191. 

Gwatkin,  Thomas,  joint  protest  with  Sam- 
uel Henley  against  the  introduction  of 
bishops,  1771,  232-234;  letter  to  the 
clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey, 
1772,  238-240. 

Hamburgh,  the  church  at,  15. 

Hampshire  county,  ministers'  petition  in 
1734  against  sending  missionaries  of 
the  Society  to  New  England,  140. 

Hart,  Governor,  recommends  the  appoint- 
ment of  two  commissaries  for  Mary- 
land in  1715,  41. 

Hayter,  Thomas,  Bishop  of  London,  1 761- 
1762,  241. 

Henderson,  Jacob,  appointed  commissary 
for  the  Western  Shore  of  Maryland  in 
1716,  41  ;  made  commissary  for  all 
Maryland,  1730,  76  ;  difficulties  in  the 
exercise  of  his  office,  76;  resigns  in 
1734.  77- 

Henley,  Samuel.     See  Gwatkin. 

Hewitt  and  Bland,  their  apprehensions 
concerning  the  political  consequences 
of  the  establishment  of  bishops,  240. 

Hobart,  Noah,  preaches  a  sermon  reflect- 
ing on  the  missionary  work  of  the  So- 
ciety, 1746,  140-14 1  ;  publishes  his 
Serious  Address,  141  ;  analysis  of  his 
argument,  141-143  ;  his  Second  Ad- 
dress, 144. 

Hollis,  Thomas,  views  on  the  episcopal 
question,  1765,  158-159. 

"  Horatio,"  utterances  on  toleration,  1768, 
208-209. 

Horrocks,  commissary,  summons  the  Vir- 
ginia clergy  to  consider  the  introduction 
of  bishops,  1771,  231-232. 


Howard,  Sir  Philip,  Governor  of  Jamaica, 
instructions  relating  to  the  Bishop  of 
London's  jurisdiction,  30. 

Howard,  of  Effingham,  Lord,  Governor 
of  Virginia,  letter  to  from  Bishop  Gib- 
son mentioning  the  supposed  order  of 
1685,  31;   text  of  the  letter,  282. 

Huetson,  Michael,  Archdeacon  of  Armagh, 
Bray's  candidate  for  the  commissary- 
ship  in  Maryland,  40. 

Hunter,  Colonel,  Governor  of  New  York, 
correspondence  with  Dean  Swift  rela- 
tive to  the  colonial  bishopric,  91-92. 

Independence.     See  Episcopacy. 
Inglis,  Charles,  author  of  the  anonymous 

Vindication  of  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff's 

Sermon,  1767,  163-164. 
Instructions  to  colonial  governors  relating 

to  the  Bishop  of  London's  jurisdiction, 

26,  29,  30,  60,  293-294. 

Jenkyns,  Sir  Leoline,  provision  in  his 
will  for  clergymen  to  go  to  sea  or  to  the 
colonies,  1685,  34. 

Jenney,  Robert,  rector  of  Christ  Church, 
Philadelphia,  and  commissary  of  Penn- 
sylvania, his  license  to  officiate  in  Christ 
Church,  309-310;  text  of  his  reply  to 
Sherlock's  circular  letter,  1751,  318- 
320. 

Johnson,  Gideon,  commissary  of  theCaro- 
linas,  1707-1716,  48. 

Johnson,  Governor  Nathaniel,  connection 
with  the  South  Carolina  Church  Acts 
of  1 704,  46-47. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  joins  the  Church  of 
England,  102  ;  efforts  and  appeals 
for  the  settlement  of  bishops  in  Amer- 
ica, in  1723-1724,  103  ;  in  1732  and 
subsequent  years,  105-108  ;  views  on 
the  relation  between  episcopacy  and 
independence,  106-108  ;  correspond- 
ence with  Seeker  relative  to  the  Amer- 
ican episcopate,  1754-1760,  133-134; 
1760-1775,  248-252  ;  monarchical  ut- 
terances, 250-251. 

Johnson,  Sir  William,  doubts  the  reality 
of  the  fear  concerning  the  introduction 
of  bishops,  271. 

Johnson,  Wm.  S.,  son  of  Samuel,  in  Eng- 
land, as  agent  for  Connecticut,   1766- 


GORDON  TO  LONDON  CHRONICLE. 


363 


1771,  218  ;  writes  his  father  that  there 
is  little  hope  of  securing  an  American 
episcopate,  253  ;  opposed  to  bishops 
with  civil  authority,  257-258. 
Juxon,  William,  consecrated  Bishop  of 
London  October  3,  1633,  17  ;  a  sup- 
porter of  Laud,  17;  high  treasurer  of 
England  in  1635,  19. 

Kennett,  Bishop,  correspondence  with 
Dr.  Colman  relative  to  bishops,  1713- 
1717,99. 

Keppel,  Frederick,  Bishop  of  Exeter,  ad- 
vocates American  bishops  in  a  sermon 
before  the  society,  1770,  191. 

King,  John,  Bishop  of  London,  i6ii- 
1621,  connection  with  the  church  in 
Virginia,  10,  11. 

King  William's  bounty,  28. 

King's  Chapel,  built  in  1689,  28;  the  min- 
ister, church  wardens,  and  vestry  peti- 
tion for  bishops  in  17 13,  98-99;  joins 
with  Christ  Church  in  an  appeal  for 
American  bishops  in  1727,  104. 

Laud,  William,  Bishop  of  London, 
1628-1633,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
1633-1645,  policy  of  extending  the 
establishment,  12,  13;  suggestions  to 
the  Privy  Council  in  1632,  13,  14;  pro- 
cures an  Order  in  Council,  October, 
1633,  vesting  the  control  over  foreign 
churches  in  the  Bishop  of  London,  14; 
becomes  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
August,  1633,  '4;  obtains  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  commission  for  govern- 
ing the  colonies  in  1634,  18-20;  another 
in  1636,  20;  efforts  to  check  emigration 
to  New  England,  1637,  20-21 ;  designs 
a  bishop  for  New  England,  1638,  21; 
summary  of  relations  with  the  church 
abroad,  22;  execution,  1645,  22;  attack 
on  his  policy  of  extending  the  Establish- 
ment in  the  London  Chronicle,  1770, 
193-194;  reference  to  his  episcopizing 
project  by  the  "  Centinel,"  1768,  205. 

Livingston,  Wm.,  supplements  Chauncy's 
Letter  to  a  Friend  by  A  Letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  Llandaff,  1767,  163.  See  also 
"  American  Whig." 

London,  Bishop  of,  origin  of  colonial 
jurisdictionof  the,  8-18;  works  relating 


to,  9;  reasons  for  vesting  control  over 
foreign  churches  in,  17,  18;  authority 
to  be  observed  in  the  English  settle- 
ments at  Delft,  18;  exercises  no  au- 
thority in  the  American  colonies  before 
the  Restoration,  18;  to  issue  testimo- 
nials to  emigrants,  20;  evidences  of 
activity  in  American  church  affairs  after 
1660,  22  ff.;  instructions  to  governors 
relating  to  his  colonial  jurisdiction,  26, 
29,  30,  60;  reference  to  his  ecclesiasti- 
cal authority  in  1704,  47-48;  references 
to  his  authority  in  the  pre-Gibson 
period,  50-5 1;  origin  and  scope  of  his 
authority  discussed  by  Commissary  Gor- 
don in  1724,  53-55;  the  attorney  and 
soHcitor  general's  report,  1725,  that  he 
has  no  legal  authority  in  the  colonies, 
57;  relation  to  the  Virginia  Tobacco 
Acts,  226;  discussion  of  his  jurisdiction 
over  clerical  offences,  1770,  1771,  228- 
230;  references  to,  by  the  clergy  of 
Virginia  in  their  controversy  over  the  in- 
troduction of  bishops.  232-234;  Osbal- 
deston  thinks  his  jurisdiction  is  in- 
fringed on  by  the  North  Carolina  Acts 
of  1760,  242;  authority  during  the 
period  from  Sherlock's  death  to  the 
Revolution,  246-247;  the  American 
Revolution  puts  an  end  to  his  colonial 
authority,  263;  act  empowering  him  to 
ordain  candidates  from  other  countries 
without  the  oath  of  allegiance,  263; 
summary  of  the  history  of  his  American 
jurisdiction,  268;  text  of  Commissary 
Gordon's  letter  discussing  the  origin 
and  scope  of  his  authority,  279-282; 
additional  instructions  relating  to  his 
colonial  jurisdiction,  1 729-1 730,  293- 
294;  list  of  the  bishops  occupying 
the  see  during  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth     centuries,    349.      See    also 

1  Abbot,  Compton,  Gibson,  Hayter,  Juxon, 
King,  Laud,  Lowth,  Osbaldeston,  Robin- 
son (John),  Sherlock,  Terrick. 

London,  diocese  of,  extent  in  1628,  li. 

London  Chronicle,  attacks  on  Seeker's 
Letter  in  its  columns,  1770,  192-194; 
contributions  to  the  newspaper  contro- 
versy, 210-213;  regards  the  religious 
and  political  questions  as  closely  allied, 
210-213. 


364 


INDEX. 


Lowth,  Robert,  Bishop  of  London,  1777- 
1787,  as  Bishop  of  Oxford  urges  the 
necessity  of  American  bishops,  1771, 
191;  refuses  to  ordain  priests  for  the 
American  Methodists,  267. 

Ludwell,  Thomas,  sends  to  Lord  Arling- 
ton a  description  of  Virginia,  1666,  23. 

Lynch,  Sir  Thomas,  Governor  of  Jamaica, 
account  of  the  church  in  his  province, 
25;  instructions  relating  to  church 
affairs,  29. 

McClenaghan,  William,  case  of,  134- 
136. 

McKean,  Robert,  accompanies  Dr,  Myles 
Cooper  in  his  Southern  journey  to 
agitate  the  introduction  of  bishops, 
231. 

Madison,  James,  consecrated  Bishop  of 
Virginia,  1790,  267. 

Martyr,  Justin,  Chandler's  quotation  from, 
167. 

Maryland,  number  of  Episcopal  clergy- 
men, in  1 67 1  and  1700,  33;  abortive 
attempt  to  set  up  a  spiritual  court, 
1708,40-41;  limitations  of  commissa- 
rial  authority  in,  during  Bishop  Robin- 
son's regime,  41-42;  condition  of  the 
church  during  the  Gibson  period,  71- 
73;  failure  of  the  Assembly  to  set  up  a 
lay  court  for  ecclesiastical  causes,  1724, 
74-76;  condition  of  the  church  after 
the  resignation  of  Commissary  Hender- 
son, 77-78;  Alexander  Adams's  account 
of  the  condition  of  the  church,  1752, 
129;  attempt  of  the  Maryland  assem- 
bly to  establish  a  spiritual  court,  1 768, 
259-260. 

Massachusetts,  state  of  the  church  at  the 
accession  of  Gibson,  65;  struggles  of 
the  Episcopalians  to  secure  exemption 
from  taxation,  70-71;  weakness  of  the 
church  after  the  death  of  Gibson,  258; 
beginning  of  annual  conventions  of  the 
clergy,  258-259;  evidences  of  hostility 
to  bishops,  259;  the  majority  of  the 
Episcopal  clergy  leave  the  colony,  1776, 
259;  measure  to  secure  the  loyalty  of 
the  remaining  clergy  to  the  American 
cause,  1777,  260. 

Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives, 
vote   thanks   in    1749   to  a  committee 


opposing  the  introduction  of  bishops, 
115,  311 ;  instruct  their  agent  to  oppose 
the  introduction  of  bishops,  1768,  225, 
235-236- 

Mather,  Cotton,  expression  of  the  atti- 
tude of  New  England  Independents 
toward  the  Church  of  England,  139. 

Mauduit,  Jasper,  agent  for  Massachusetts, 
1 762-1 766,  later  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee on  the  civil  affairs  of  the  dis- 
senters, 223. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan,  fears  of  episcopal 
tyranny,  1750,  145;  publishes  his  Ob- 
servations, 1763,  146;  discussion  of  his 
argument,  147-149;  an  "advertise- 
ment" of,  1763,  150-151;  his  Defense 
of  his  Observations,  1763,  153-154; 
replies  to  Seeker's  Answer  in  his  Re- 
marks on  an  Anonymous  Tract,  1764, 
154-158;  his  final  position  on  the 
question  of  an  American  episcopate, 
157,  158. 

Mayhew  Controversy,  cause  and  occasion, 
145-146;  ecclesiastical  and  political 
results,  159-160, 

Methodiis  Procedendi,  issued  by  Bishop 
Gibson,  1728,  61;  analysis  of,  61-63; 
reprint  of,  from  the  original  pamphlet, 
294-309. 

Moravian  and  Roman  Catholic  bishops, 
Chauncy  suggests  that  they  can  confer 
ordination,  180;  Chandler  considers 
and  refutes  this  suggestion,  183-184. 

Morell,  William,  said  to  have  exercised 
commissarial  functions  in  New  Eng- 
land, 3. 

Moss,  Charles,  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  advo- 
cates American  bishops  in  a  sermon 
before  the  Society,  191-192. 

Murray,  Alexander,  proposed  as  bishop  of 
Virginia  in  1662,  90. 

Myles,  Samuel,  rector  of  King's  Chapel, 
Boston,  answers  Gibson's  queries,  1724, 
65-66;  petitions  against  the  holding  of 
a  synod  of  the  New  England  churches 
in  1725,  67-68. 

Nelson,  William,  discusses  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Bishop  of  London  over  cler- 
ical offences,  228-230. 

Newcastle,  Duke  of,  correspondence  on  the 
subject  of  an  American  episcopate,  1 749- 


LOWTH  TO  RESIDENT  BISHOPS. 


365 


1750,  II7-122,  passim;  text  of  the 
correspondence,  from  the  Newcastle 
Papers,  320-332. 

New  England,  a  bishop  designed  for,  in 
1638,  21;  condition  of  the  church  in 
1678,  28;  attempt  of  the  congregational 
churches  to  hold  a  synod  in  1725  de- 
feated by  the  English  government,  67- 
70;  efforts  of  the  clergy  to  secure 
bishops  for  the  American  colonies, 
103-105 ;  six  leading  clergymen  approve 
Butler's  plan  of  1750,  124;  episcopal 
controversies  in,  139  ff. 

Newspaper  controversy,  195  ff.;  sum- 
mary of  nature  and  results,  213-214. 

Newton,  Thomas,  Bishop  of  Bristol,  advo- 
cates bishops  in  a  sermon  before  the 
Society,  1769,  191. 

New  York,  the  church  established  in  three 
counties,  1693,  34. 

New  York  and  New  Jersey  clergy.  See 
Conventions. 

Non-juring  bishops  in  the  colonies,  103. 

North  Carolina,  Church  Act  of  1755,  130- 
131;  Vestry  Acts  of  1760,  241-243; 
Church  Act  of  1765  approved  by 
Bishop  Terrick,  243-244;  goes  in  force 
in  the  province,  244-245. 

Observations  of  the  Bishop  of  London 
regarding  a  suffragan  for  America, 
1707,  summary  and  discussion  of, 
97-98;   complete  text  of,  277-278. 

Order  in  Council,  the  traditionary  order 
of  the  Laudian  period,  8,  9;  the  order 
of  October,  1633,  vesting  the  control  of 
foreign  churches  in  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don, 14;  its  provisions,  15;  a  prece- 
dent for  the  American  authority  of 
future  Bishops  of  London,  15;  did 
not  extend  to  the  American  colonies, 
16;  discussion  of  the  supposed  order 
of  1685,  31-32,  54-55;  McConnell's 
erroneous  citation  concerning  an  order 
of  1703,  55;  extracts  from  the  order  of 
1633,  273-274;  text  of  the  order  of 
1686,  suspending  Bishop  Gibson  from 
the  exercise  of  his  colonial  jurisdiction, 
283;  text  of  an  order  of  August,  1726, 
relating  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in 
the  plantations,  287-289. 

Osbaldeston,  Richard,  Bishop  of  London, 


1762-1764,  241;  his  attitude  on  colo- 
nial questions,  241 ;  objections  to  the 
North  Carolina  Vestry  Acts  of  1760, 
241-243. 

Parliament,  act  of  1784  relative  to  the 
ordination  of  candidates  for  priest's  or- 
ders from  other  countries,  263;  act  of 
1786  relative  to  candidates  for  episco- 
pal consecration,  266;  text  of  the  acts 
of  1784  and  1786,  346-348. 

Parliamentary  legislation,  opposed  by  the 
colonists,  220. 

Parson's  Cause.  See  Virginia  Tobacco 
Acts. 

Pennsylvania,  clause  in  the  charter  of 
1 680- 1 68 1  relating  to  the  church,  36- 

37- 
Philips,  Francis,  curate  of  Christ  Church, 

Philadelphia,  case  of,  1715,  37-39. 
Pigot,  George,  urges  the  establishment  of 

an  American  episcopate,  102. 
"  Presbyter  in  Old  England,"  arguments 

against  the  introduction  of  American 

bishops,  177. 
Presbyterians  of  New  York,  applications 

for   a   charter,    of  incorporation,    181 ; 

possible  effect  in  bringing  on  the  news- 
paper controversy,  146. 
Price,  Roger,  made  commissary  of  New 

England,  1730,  71. 
Proclamations,  issued  April  10  and  May  i, 

1637,  to  restrict  immigration   to   New 

England,  20,  21. 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 

States,  established  in  1789,  267, 
Provoost,  Samuel,  his  opposition  to  Sea- 
bury,  266;    consecrated  bishop  of  New 

York,  1787,  266,  267. 

Quakers,  Chandler  asserts  that  those  of 
Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  are  not 
opposed  to  an  American  episcopate, 
185. 

Ramsay,  John,  case  of,  227-228. 

Resident  bishops,  efforts  of  the  Society  to 
secure,  36;  suggested  for  Virginia  in 
1697  and  1724,  45;  classification  of  the 
attempts  to  secure,  before  1748,  88-89; 
the  Laudian  project  of  1638,  89;  appli- 
cations come  mostly  from  the  Northern 


366 


INDEX. 


and  Middle  colonies,  reasons  why  the 
project  was  not  favored  by  the  Southern 
colonies,  89;  project  to  send  Dr.  Alex- 
ander Murray  to  Virginia  in  1662,  90; 
rumor  that  bishops  are  to  be  sent  to  the 
colonies  in  1664,  91;  abortive  project 
of  Chaplain  Miller  of  New  York,  91; 
project  to  make  Dean  Swift  bishop  of 
Virginia,  1712-1713,  91-92;  advocated 
in  Virginia's  Cure,  1662,92-93;  peti- 
tion of  the  clergy  assembled  at  Burling- 
ton, New  Jersey,  1705,  95;  petitions 
from  the  Northern  colonies,  98-99;  ad- 
dress from  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia, 
and  St.  Anne's,  Burlington,  1718,  lOl- 
102;  probable  effect  of  their  introduc- 
tion, iio;  gifts  for  their  establishment, 
iio-iii;  summary  of  the  efforts  to  es- 
tablish, before  1748,  111-112;  a  depu- 
tation sent  to  England  in  1749  to  protest 
against  their  introduction,  115,  311; 
functions  enumerated  in  the  Society's 
Abstract  iot  171 5,  1 54-155;  dangers  to 
be  apprehended  from,  219-220;  Massa- 
chusetts and  Connecticut  instruct  their 
agents  to  oppose,  225;  attitude  of  the 
clergy  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  230- 
231 ;  correspondence  relating  to,  from 
1760  to  the  Revolution,  24S-253;  mo- 
tives of  the  English  government  in 
withholding,  255-258;  the  governor 
and  assembly  oppose  an  attempt  of 
the  Maryland  clergy  to  secure,  1770, 
261;  summary  of  the  history  of  the 
attempts  to  secure,  268;  their  introduc- 
tion not  opposed  after  the  Revolution, 
270-271;  doubts  on  the  reality  of  the 
fear  concerning  their  introduction, 
271;  arguments  against  their  intro- 
duction into  the  colonies,  see  "Ameri- 
can Whig,"  Blackburne,  "  Centinel," 
Chauncy,  Convention  of  Delegates, 
Foot,  Sir  Isaac,  Gwatkin,  Livingston, 
London  Chronicle,  Mayhew,  "  Pres- 
byter," Sherman,  Walpole;  argu- 
ments for,  see  "  Anatomist,"  Apthorp, 
Browne,  Caner,  Chauncy,  Conven- 
tion of  the  clergy  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  Ewer,  Inglis,  Seeker, 
Sherlock,  "  Whip  for  the  American 
Whig."  See  also  Bray,  Butler,  Comp- 
ton,    Eliot,    Evans,     Madison,     Pigot, 


Provoost,  Seabury,  Society  for  Propa- 
gating the  Gospel,  Talbot,  White, 
Episcopal  controversies. 

Restoration,  evidences  of  relations  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  with  American 
church  affairs  after,  22  ff. 

Robinson,  John,  Bishop  of  London,  17 13- 
1723,  instructions  to  Commissary  Bull, 

49-50- 
Robinson,  Wm.,  commissary  of  Virginia, 

226-227. 
Royal  Commission  of  1728,  summary  of 
its  provisions,  58;  Bishop  Sherlock's 
opinion  of  its  scope,  58-59;  English 
translation  of  its  text,  289-293.  See 
also  Gibson. 

Sancroft,  Archbishop,  temporarily  in 
charge  of  the  colonial  church,  32. 

Seabury,  Samuel,  goes  to  England  for 
episcopal  consecration,  1783,  264; 
consecrated  by  the  Scotch  non-juring 
bishops,  1784,  265;  his  reasons  for  ap- 
plying to  the  non-jurors,  265-266; 
opposition  to,  266-267;  invited  to  at- 
tend the  Protestant  Episcopal  General 
Convention,  1789,  and  made  first  presi- 
dent of  the  House  of  Bishops,  267. 

Seeker,  Thomas,  Bishop  of  Oxford,  later 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  urges  the 
establishment  of  an  American  episco- 
pate in  a  sermon  before  the  Society, 
1740,  109;  correspondence  with  Dr. 
Johnson  relative  to  the  American 
episcopate,  133-134,  248-252;  author 
of  the  anonymous  Answer  to  Mayhew's 
Observations,  1764,  147;  discussion  of 
his  argument,  151-152;  his  letter,  in 
reply  to  Horatio  Walpole's  of  1750, 
published  in  1769,  186-187;  his  argu- 
ment, 187-189. 

Seymour,  Colonel,  Governor  of  Maryland, 
quarrels  with  Commissary  Bray,  39- 
40. 

Sharp,  Granville,  doubts  the  validity  of 
orders  conferred  by  the  non-jurors,  266. 

Sherlock,  Thomas,  Bishop  of  London, 
1748-1761;  views  on  the  origin  of  the 
Bishop  of  London's  colonial  jurisdiction, 
9-12;  comments  on  the  clause  in 
Lynch's  instructions  relating  to  the 
Bishop  of  London,  29;   commentary  on 


RESTORATION-  TO   TERRICK,   RICHARD. 


367 


the  Gibson  patent  of  1728,  58-59;  suc- 
ceeds Gibson  as  Bishop  of  London, 
1748,  113;  policy  with  regard  to  the 
colonies,  113-114;  sends  an  agent  to 
the  colonies,  115-116;  presents  his 
Considerations  to  the  English  govern- 
ment, 1749,  116;  correspondence  with 
English  officers  of  state  relative  to  the 
introduction  of  bishops,  1 749-1 750, 116- 
122;  finally  decides  to  assume  ecclesi- 
astical charge  of  the  colonies,  1752, 125; 
allusions  in  correspondence  with  Dr. 
Doddridge  to  his  colonial  jurisdiction, 
126-127;  position  regarding  the  Vir- 
ginia Tobacco  Acts,  130;  discussion  of 
the  North  Carolina  Church  Act  of  1755, 
130-131;  his  reasons  for  refusing  to 
renew  the  Gibson  patent,  131-133;  sum- 
mary of  his  policy  and  work,  137-13S; 
motives  for  desiring  to  substitute  the 
jurisdiction  of  American  bishops  for 
that  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  246- 
247;  reprint  of  his  circular  letter  of 
1 750  to  the  colonial  commissaries,  311- 
312;  correspondence  with  Newcastle 
and  Horatio  Walpole,  relative  to  the 
introduction  of  American  bishops,  from 
the  Newcastle  Papers,  1 749-1 750,  320- 
332;  reprint  of  his  "  Report  on  the 
State  of  the  Church  in  England  in  the 
Colonies,"  1749,  from  the  New  York 
Documents,  332-345. 

Sherman,  Roger,  letter  attributed  to  him 
on  the  introduction  of  American 
bishops,  218-220. 

Shirley,  Thomas,  Governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, secures  exemption  of  Episcopa- 
lians from  taxation,  71 ;  provisions 
relating  to  religion  in  his  instructions, 

71- 

"  Short  Way  to  End  Strife,"  a,  discusses 
the  nature  of  the  proposed  episcopate, 
202-203. 

Smith,  H.  B.,  views  on  the  ecclesiastical 
causes  of  the  American  Revolution,  270. 

Smith,  Dr.  Wm.,  provost  of  the  College 
of  Philadelphia,  cooperates  with  the 
clergy  of  Christ  Church  in  a  patriotic 
letter  to  Bishop  Terrick,  1775,  207;  ad- 
vocates the  restoration  of  commissaries, 
1762,247.     5if,f  "  Anatomist." 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  num- 


ber of  missionaries  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  33;  origin  and  aims,  34  ff.; 
attitude  toward  the  South  Carolma 
Church  Act  of  1 704,  35-36;  efforts  to 
secure  American  bishops,  1703-1715, 
loo-ioi;  instructions  to  missionaries 
relative  to  relations  with  the  civil 
authorities,  1753,  1756,  124-125;  dis- 
cussion of  its  motives,  149-150;  charges 
of  episcopizing  by  Blackburne,  190; 
extracts  from  annual  sermons  on  the 
subject  of  American  bishops,  1764-1771, 
191-192;  motives  vindicated  by  the 
Address  of  1 771,  237.  See  also  Resident 
bishops. 

South  CaroHna,  Church  Act  of  1704,  35; 
46-48;  the  church  established  in  the 
province,  1706,  48;  evidence  of  oppo- 
sition to  bishops,  256. 

Spencer,  A.,  sent  by  Sherlock  to  the  colo- 
nies in  1749  to  ascertain  the  feeling 
with  regard  to  the  introduction  of 
bishops,  1 1 5-1 16;  text  of  his  letter  to 
Bishop  Sherlock  relating  to  his  mission 
to  the  colonies  in  behalf  of  an  Ameri- 
can Episcopate,  310-31 1. 

Stiles,  Dr.,  his  application  to  the  clerk  of 
the  New  York  convention  for  copies  of 
its  petitions  for  bishops,  180. 

Swift,  Dean,  plan  to  make  him  bishop  of 
Virginia,  91-92. 

Synod.  See  New  England  and  Convention 
of  Delegates. 

Talbot,  John,  appeal  for  American 
bishops  in  1702,  93-94  ;  subsequent 
efforts,  94-95  ;  said  to  have  received 
Episcopal  consecration  from  the  non- 
juring  bishops,  103. 

Tennison,  Archbishop,  connection  with  the 
Society,  35;  bequeathes  ;^  1000  toward 
the  support  of  an  American  bishop, 
1715,  III. 

Terrick,  Richard,  Bishop  of  London,  1761- 
177 1,  his  share  in  defeating  the  peti- 
tion of  the  New  York  Presbyterians  for 
a  charter  of  incorporation,  181  ;  ex- 
presses a  desire  for  bishops  resident 
in  the  colonies,  1765,  177 1,  234-235; 
accession,  243;  approves  the  North 
Carolina  Church  Act  of  1765,  243-244  ; 
comments  on  his  own  jurisdiction,  244— 


368 


INDEX. 


245  ;  urges  the  establishment  of  Amer- 
ican bishops,  245. 

"Timothy  Tickle."  See  "Whip  for  the 
American  Whig." 

Toleration.     See  "  Horatio." 

"  Veridicus's  verses  to  the  Whig  Writer," 
1768,  210. 

Virginia,  first  charter,  9  ;  second  charter, 
10  ;  provisions  relating  to  the  estab- 
lishment in,  9,  II,  16-17  5  condition 
of  the  church  described  in  Virginia's 
Cure,  23  ;  ecclesiastical  abuses  in,  27  ; 
number  of  Episcopal  clergymen  in  1671 
and  1700,  33;  suggestions  for  the 
ecclesiastical  government  of,  1724,  44- 
45  ;  conditions  of  the  church  during 
the  Gibson  period,  78-So  ;  treatment 
of  dissent  in  the  colony,  126  ;  clerical 
discipline  in,  227-231  ;  opposition  to 
bishops,  230  ff.;  attitude  of  the  clergy 
toward  the  introduction  of  bishops, 
230-231. 

Virginia  clergy,  efforts  to  secure  the  intro- 
duction of  bishops,  231-235. 

Virginia  House  of  Burgesses,  resolution  of 
thanks  to  the  opponents  of  the  measure 
to   introduce  American  bishops,  1771, 

235- 
Virginia  Tobacco  Acts,  Sherlock's  relation 
to,  130,  226. 

Walpole,  Horatio,  correspondence  relat- 
ing to  the  introduction  of  bishops  into 
the  colonies,  1749-1750,  118-122;  text 
of  the  correspondence,  320-332. 

Weekly  Miscellany,  extracts  from,  relat- 


ing to  Bishop  Gibson's  efforts  to  secure 
a  legal  authorization  for  the  exercise  of 
his  colonial  jurisdiction,  283-285. 

Welton,  Richard,  said  to  have  received 
Episcopal  consecration  from  the  non- 
juring  bishops,  103. 

Wentworth,  John,  Governor  of  New 
Hampshire,  project  to  establish  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  province, 
1769,  260. 

Wetmore,  James,  his  Vindication  in  an- 
swer to  Noah  Hobart's  sermon  of  1746, 
141. 

"  Whip  for  the  American  Whig,"  motives 
for  writing,  and  strictures  on  the 
"  American  Whig  "  and  "  Centinel," 
201. 

White,  Wm.,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Penn- 
sylvania, 1787,  266-267. 

Whitefield,  George,  tried  and  suspended 
from  preaching  by  Commissary  Garden 
of  South  Carolina,  1740-1741,  80-86. 

Wilberforce,  Samuel,  views  on  the  origin 
of  the  Bishop  of  London's  colonial 
jurisdiction,  12, 

Wilkinson,  Christopher,  appointed  com- 
missary for  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Mary- 
land, 1716,  41;  sends  Bishop  Gibson 
an  account  of  his  work  under  Bishop 
Robinson,  1724,  73-74. 

W^illard,  Secretary,  expresses  views  of 
moderate  New  Englanders  on  the  sub- 
ject of  American  bishops,  1750,  145. 

Worsley,  H.,  Governor  of  Barbadoes,  cor- 
respondence with  Commissary  Gordon, 
relation  to  the  Bishop  of  London's 
colonial  jurisdiction,  1 723-1 724,  279. 


/^^''1^^,-y^y 


>^ 


I  ^■''■?vr\  i-ir-- 


Date  Due 


